[Speaker 1] (6:30 - 7:23)
Welcome to the July 19th, 2022 meeting of the Swamp Slug Zoning Board of Appeals, which is in a hybrid fashion that's permitted pursuant to the Governor's June 16th, 2021 order, with now being at 7 p.m., we'll get started with our agenda. The first matter for the board is the review and approval of the June 21, 2022 meeting minutes that were circulated. Any comment on those, or should I make a motion to approve?

I should just note, first, she's with us online, right? Andy's here, and Paul's here online.

[Speaker 11] (7:24 - 7:25)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (7:25 - 7:28)
Okay. Yeah, this screen's not on. You should be right up here.

[Speaker 11] (7:28 - 7:32)
Oh, Ethan, are you able to toggle that, the front screen?

[Speaker 1] (7:35 - 7:46)
Thanks so much. That was it? I think so, yeah.

Oh, this one here went out, though, now.

[Speaker 15] (7:47 - 7:47)
Oh, no, it's back on.

[Speaker 1] (7:48 - 8:33)
Great. All right. So, I'll make a motion to approve the June 21, 2022 meeting minutes.

Do I have a second on that? Second. I'll do a roll call.

Andy, yes. Dan? Yes.

Heather? Yes. Paula?

Yes. And Andy? Yes.

Okay. The next item on our agenda is petition 2206 for 80 Middlesex Avenue, continued from May. Is Ms. Simon here on that, or let's see. I think I see a mute on that one.

[Speaker 5] (8:33 - 8:34)
I'm here.

[Speaker 1] (8:34 - 8:35)
Hi, how are you?

[Speaker 5] (8:36 - 8:42)
I'm here. Hi, good. My reception is a little spotty, so I apologize.

[Speaker 1] (8:44 - 8:57)
Okay. So, I saw since the last meeting you submitted a plan that showed, or a sketch that showed the new front porch roof, right?

[Speaker 15] (8:58 - 8:59)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (9:00 - 9:12)
And is that the only, I saw there's two different, it looked like there were two different plot plans, or maybe it's the same one.

[Speaker 5] (9:13 - 9:14)
One just has a clearer outline.

[Speaker 1] (9:15 - 9:19)
Oh, okay, but it's the same one, right? All right, so I can get.

[Speaker 5] (9:19 - 9:21)
Yeah, it's just only one drawing.

[Speaker 1] (9:24 - 9:24)
Okay, so.

[Speaker 4] (9:28 - 9:55)
So that drawing, the drawing, unfortunately, it doesn't show the distance from the front lot line to the, to the, I guess, roof edge of the stoop, or what's called the stoop. That's the, we need to know that. Because the house is.

[Speaker 5] (9:55 - 10:39)
Yes, my understanding was that the previous drawing, the previous plot plan, I mean, it's that front porch, it doesn't change. So that front porch is the existing structure. The roof is the new piece.

Right. And it doesn't extend any further than the existing porch, which was the reference to 2.3.6.0. Let me see, there's Roman X here. I guess it's a little too, indicating that the request does not seek to extend the footprint of the structure any closer to the plot line that currently exists.

[Speaker 6] (10:41 - 10:44)
Yeah, but when you put a roof, when you put a roof on top.

[Speaker 5] (10:44 - 10:53)
The roof doesn't extend, the roof does not extend it. But the roof does not extend the footprint.

[Speaker 3] (10:54 - 11:09)
No, but putting the roof on top of a porch without a deck, without a roof, the porch is one thing. When you put the roof on the porch, that's where you change the dynamic that we're talking.

[Speaker 1] (11:09 - 11:12)
So, but I wanted to have a discussion about this.

[Speaker 3] (11:12 - 11:13)
But it doesn't change the footprint.

[Speaker 1] (11:14 - 15:17)
She's right, it doesn't change the footprint. What I wanted to, you know, I've spent, we've spent a lot of time since we got the opinion. Back in November of 21 from Robin Stein.

That referenced the Balalta case. And, you know, my thought was. Why is it, you know, why is it different than these other matters where we've looked at the analysis.

Under Balalta, that are arguably our bylaw extends further than what 48 section six allows us to. And. I'm thinking that, you know, Balalta.

As Robin said to us in her memo. The statute requires an owner of a single or two family residential building with a pre-existing nonconformity. Proposes a modification that is found to increase the nonconforming nature of the structure.

That's what we have here. It's clearly increasing the nonconforming nature of the structure. To obtain a finding under 48 section six that such change, extension, alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental.

Than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. And then she went on citing the case. That 48 section six creates a statutory requirement that sets the floor.

For appropriate protections from local zoning bylaws to be afforded to properties. And as such, the statute prescribes the minimum of tolerance that must be accorded to nonconforming uses. The bylaw may not afford fewer protections to pre-existing nonconforming structure uses than does the governing statute.

And then. Attorney Stein. She went on about that particular analysis we asked her to do on 53 Puritan.

That it was her opinion. Notwithstanding that on its face section 2.2.7.3B appears to require the property owner. To obtain a dimensional special permit or variance pursuant to 48 section six.

No such relief is or can be required where. As here. What is that issue is the alteration of an extension.

Is the alteration or extension of an existing nonconformity. In my opinion. This is the other case.

All that is required. If anything is a section six special permit. The finding.

And in that case. She went on. That the board should first evaluate the relevant work to determine if it is increasing the nonconforming nature of any existing nonconformity.

Which here it is. The zoning board finds in the negative. Which we're we're not here.

No relief is necessary. If the zoning board finds. There's an increase in the nonconforming nature of any existing nonconformity.

Then the board. They grant a section six special permit upon its determination. The change.

Is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity. To the neighborhood. So, you know, she gives us the analysis when we're dealing with the nonconforming.

Single or two family that the first is. To make a determination that there's an increase the nonconforming nature of the existing nonconforming. In the existing nonconforming.

Structure then. If there isn't. No relief necessary.

There is an increase. In the nonconforming nature. Then it's a section six special permit analysis.

So. I've become conditioned. To these.

Unreported. That are nonconforming. To immediately just.

Rely on the precedent. We've set with this board. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (15:18 - 15:29)
The. The difference is. The porch is not.

Not conforming. Just because. If it's an open stairs, you're going to have stairs.

In the front yard. But in the fact that you roofed it.

[Speaker 1] (15:29 - 15:40)
I get that. I get that. But.

When you look at. The Balalta case. In detail.

[Speaker 3] (15:43 - 15:48)
You know, the house is set back 16, seven from the street. Right.

[Speaker 1] (15:48 - 17:02)
But the stoop itself is a structure. The how our bylaw provides. That this.

The stoop doesn't count on the setback. Right. For dimensionally.

Right. But the stoop is still considered a structure. In the stoop.

You know, but for our. Our bylaw that permits it. Would still be considered a structure.

And would. You know, looking at it from a 48 section six analysis. I believe.

Be considered. Part of the structure. And.

It not. So let me. Let me just.

Look and tell you about what it says. Specifically. In Balalta.

Because it does reference. The way it describes it in Balalta. Is.

A modification that is found to increase the nonconforming nature. Of the structure. So it doesn't say.

Is the stoop part of the structure. And is it therefore increasing. The nonconforming.

Nature of it.

[Speaker 3] (17:02 - 17:25)
But Mark. The deck. Is like.

If you calculated the open space. Right. Yeah.

Would not be counted. Yeah. But if you then.

Put a roof on it. So all of a sudden. Someone theoretically.

Could build. A porch. All the way around their house.

One foot from the property line. In every direction.

[Speaker 1] (17:26 - 17:26)
Yeah. And then roof.

[Speaker 3] (17:27 - 17:51)
Okay. And then come back. And you'd say.

Well, it's a structure. It's not conforming. In the house.

It's in the middle. With the right side. Side.

But then they come back. And they put a roof over all. The porch.

That they had. In circle. In circle.

The house. And you'd say. Oh, okay.

That's. That's fine. They don't want to obliterate.

The side yards. And setbacks.

[Speaker 1] (17:52 - 18:35)
So. On that Puritan. Way.

53 Puritan. That we had. We had that.

Second floor. Storage room. Over what had been a roof.

But on an enclosed porch. Located at the front left corner. Of the dwelling.

Right. And it was in. The building commission.

Determined that the said work. Resulted in an increase. The nonconforming nature.

Of the existing. Nonconforming lot coverage. In the front yard.

Setback deficiencies. In many. Because it's roofed.

[Speaker 3] (18:36 - 18:44)
It's roofed. It's a building. It's set up.

That's the difference. The roof. Makes it.

Puts it into. Being calculated. Lot coverage.

Et cetera.

[Speaker 1] (18:44 - 18:47)
I get the lot coverage. That's a good point. And I wanted to really just.

[Speaker 4] (18:48 - 19:01)
Remember on that. On that. Puritan.

Road case. It was also. The amendment of the bylaw.

The bylaws. Definition of. A gross floor area.

Which made a big difference. In that. It did make a difference.

Right.

[Speaker 5] (19:02 - 19:02)
Because all of a sudden.

[Speaker 4] (19:03 - 19:07)
All of a sudden. The roof. That roof.

Didn't count anymore. Because it didn't increase the.

[Speaker 5] (19:07 - 19:13)
Can I also add that literally. Every house on my block. Has a porch with a roof over it.

Except for mine.

[Speaker 15] (19:14 - 19:14)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (19:15 - 19:28)
It would have zero impact. On any of the other factors. That are.

Listed under the special permit. It doesn't impact traffic. It doesn't impact.

The aesthetic appearance. None of the neighbors mind about it. It doesn't impact utilities.

It doesn't impact anything.

[Speaker 1] (19:29 - 20:15)
Right. I don't. If the analysis.

If the analysis. Is as I would. I don't.

Expect that there would be. Any issue. With getting a finding.

From our board. That. It is not substantially.

More detrimental. The question. Is whether or not.

It applies. Whether this. Balalta.

Case. Controls. What I.

You know. Quite frankly. Like to do is.

To. To get a. Opinion.

From town council. Just to. See.

If we're missing something. On it. Or not.

We're not missing something. On it. We get a lot of these.

And we've decided. In a certain way. And.

I understand. Andy makes. An excellent point.

And that's kind of what. Yeah. We can.

[Speaker 4] (20:15 - 20:17)
Be reading that. 2382. Right out of the bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (20:18 - 20:26)
Right. But simply because it's. The local office.

Says that your bylaw. Can't go. This far.

And I'm just wondering. If it applies to.

[Speaker 7] (20:33 - 20:34)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (20:34 - 20:36)
But that's what I'm saying. If we get an opinion. Now.

[Speaker 15] (20:36 - 20:36)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (20:37 - 20:54)
And we find out. If. Because we.

This is something that we have. All the time. We have.

We have. It seems very reasonable. But.

But it's. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (20:55 - 20:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (20:56 - 20:58)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (20:58 - 21:02)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (21:04 - 21:05)
Yeah. Sad.

[Speaker 1] (21:05 - 21:44)
But we haven't allowed wanted to. In the 20 years. I've been on the board.

Then 20-plus. We haven't allow these. And to that late 2,021.

Town Council and a different case. Give us an opinion. That part of our bylaw.

Might extend too far. Question I have is the distinction between the facts of that case. The facts of this case.

Which. Mr rose. Is pointed out.

And. And I think it's worthwhile at this time just to get an opinion to see if we have the jurisdiction to give you the relief you're looking for.

[Speaker 7] (21:44 - 22:21)
Can I ask one question too? The job plan looks like there's the stoop and then the staircase is in front of the stoop. It drops out.

But the images look like it's straight across. You know what I'm saying? You know that with John's, the setting, it looks like the steps are even more in front of the stoop.

But the pictures, it looks smooth across.

[Speaker 1] (22:22 - 22:30)
Right. Right. And it's not giving us the dimension or the distance as well.

[Speaker 7] (22:30 - 22:34)
So do your steps bump in front of the stoop? And does the roof go all the way to that edge?

[Speaker 4] (22:38 - 22:50)
Well, according to the rendering, it looks like it goes all the way to the edge in the rendering.

[Speaker 1] (22:51 - 22:53)
Right. It looks like it covers more than it supports.

[Speaker 4] (22:53 - 23:01)
You can see the posts that support the railing in the front. Looks like it's in line with the edge of this very right edge of the stairs.

[Speaker 1] (23:02 - 23:06)
It looks to me like, you know, you can't tell right at the end of the stairs. Sorry.

[Speaker 5] (23:07 - 23:10)
What is the question with respect to the location of the stairs?

[Speaker 1] (23:10 - 23:14)
Are they being moved back closer to the house? They're staying right where they are?

[Speaker 5] (23:14 - 23:21)
No. The stairs are exactly where they are. So the plot plan shows the stairs versus the drawing, which makes it look like it's straight across.

[Speaker 7] (23:21 - 23:24)
There's actually a jog in the front line of that house.

[Speaker 5] (23:27 - 23:29)
I'm trying to think from above.

[Speaker 1] (23:29 - 23:43)
We can put it up on the board. Marissa, do you have any idea? Do you have the plot plan that's the one that looks more consistent with the photograph?

[Speaker 14] (23:45 - 23:46)
The street view?

[Speaker 1] (23:48 - 23:51)
Yeah. Oh, so that looks like it's a little different than the one.

[Speaker 15] (23:52 - 23:52)
Yeah.

[Speaker 14] (23:52 - 23:53)
The plot plan looks more consistent.

[Speaker 1] (24:05 - 24:15)
So the picture looks different because it looks like it goes straight across as opposed to having that jog. What jog are you talking about? See how the stoop?

[Speaker 3] (24:16 - 24:26)
The jog below the P. The notch where the P is. It looks like the railing's in line with the stoop.

It goes straight across.

[Speaker 4] (24:26 - 24:27)
I see. I see. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (24:28 - 24:30)
Yeah. It doesn't appear to be consistent.

[Speaker 3] (24:32 - 24:32)
I see.

[Speaker 6] (24:33 - 24:36)
Do you understand, Ms. Simon, the difference between the rendering?

[Speaker 5] (24:36 - 24:39)
The rendering is the way that it's currently structured.

[Speaker 3] (24:41 - 24:47)
So I guess the question is— So the stoop doesn't have the notch. Right.

[Speaker 7] (24:48 - 24:56)
So that's—is it that the stairs have moved back closer to the house or is there— No, the stairs are where they are.

[Speaker 5] (24:56 - 25:26)
They're a little bit—I guess the stairs are wider so they go closer to the house. There used to be, so before the porch was rebuilt because it was made out of stone and the stonework was crumbling. So when they rebuilt the stairs, the stairs now run all the way up to the house.

They don't extend further towards the street, but they do run closer to the house. Instead of there being...

[Speaker 7] (25:26 - 25:28)
And that corner's been filled in.

[Speaker 14] (25:29 - 25:31)
That jog's been filled in.

[Speaker 5] (25:32 - 25:32)
Yeah.

[Speaker 15] (25:34 - 25:36)
Okay, so there's new steps.

[Speaker 14] (25:36 - 25:41)
So the street view photograph that I'm looking at isn't what exists now.

[Speaker 5] (25:44 - 25:46)
I don't see that.

[Speaker 14] (25:47 - 26:00)
Okay, so I see the street view photograph, which is the old brick stairs. That's right. Okay, so now you've got new stairs and a new deck made out of...

[Speaker 5] (26:00 - 26:11)
Yeah, this used to be built in the same location. Yeah, it's not brick anymore. Now it's composite.

The slope's different for the stairs, right? Yeah. Okay, got it.

[Speaker 1] (26:14 - 26:19)
So that looks a little bit, that looks like the survey photo. It looks like there is a notch.

[Speaker 4] (26:20 - 26:28)
Yeah, we can't really see, but oh yeah, the bush is blocking it. But it looks like right there to the bush is where it goes.

[Speaker 7] (26:28 - 26:36)
So it's already been extended. So then, you know what I mean, it's already been extended into that notch. Right.

[Speaker 3] (26:37 - 26:59)
So there's what Dan's saying, your bracket cleats. So before the porch was back, and you put a roof over that, then you slide it out so it's parallel with the steps. A couple of years, you come back, you can put a roof over that.

Then maybe you'll build the steps, you know, in front of the steps, have a platform, and then you can say, put a roof over that.

[Speaker 1] (27:00 - 27:50)
Right, but Andy, here's the argument under, you know, what I see under Belalta. So if you have a pre-existing non-conformity, not something that's been permitted by the ZBA, so if we give a special permit, it's permitted. But if you built this, if this structure, say, was built in 1910 with those stairs where they are, what Belalta says is that 48 Section 6 protects that, if it pre-existed changes to your zoning by-law.

And you can make changes so long as you make that special permit finding, that Section 6 special permit finding.

[Speaker 3] (27:50 - 27:58)
But Mark, look at the picture of the stairs, and then, now that notch is filled in.

[Speaker 1] (27:58 - 28:14)
Right, she would need proof, the petitioner would need proof to show that those were in that location, going back to a date before, you know, either Swampscott adopted zoning.

[Speaker 3] (28:14 - 28:20)
No, but what the plan shows now is not even that, because the notch is now filled in.

[Speaker 5] (28:21 - 28:25)
We received a permit to build the porch previously.

[Speaker 3] (28:25 - 28:32)
Right, when it was a porch, but when you change it and put a roof on it, that's where you changed what it is.

[Speaker 1] (28:32 - 28:42)
Right, but even if she got a building permit to, with a set of plans to fill in the notch.

[Speaker 3] (28:48 - 29:04)
But you can get a building permit to build a deck one foot from the property line in all four squares of your lot, and then you're telling me I'm going to be able to come along and put a roof on it?

[Speaker 1] (29:04 - 29:25)
Well, I think what Belalta says is that if it was a pre-existing non-conforming use, protected by 40A section 6, but this isn't what you have here, because it's permitted. You have the ability to get the permit to fill in the notch, therefore it's not protected.

[Speaker 5] (29:25 - 29:44)
And we had originally told her to extend the front porch out further, but when we got the original permit to rebuild the porch, we were told that we had to keep it at the same line as where this porch that you're looking at here exists, which we did. We did not extend further towards the street, but we did fill in that notch.

[Speaker 1] (29:45 - 30:02)
Right, but Andy, could you build that, I'm trying to think of what, there is a dimensional protection, a setback, that would impact this.

[Speaker 3] (30:02 - 30:18)
Because it's determined, and it has always been, the roof makes it a structure that's covered in square footage, calculable in all the different gross floor area, this, that, and everything else, when you put a roof on it, as opposed to not having a roof on it.

[Speaker 1] (30:19 - 30:21)
Right, right, but I think the distinction that I'm talking about...

[Speaker 3] (30:21 - 30:28)
I mean, I'm opposed to this, but I don't see how you're granting it without throwing the bylaw or the dustbin.

[Speaker 1] (30:28 - 30:51)
Well, I don't think this is the one for it, but I think if it were, if we were looking at a structure that was clearly there, that pre-existed zoning, and there was a non-conforming change that was looking to be made, we'd have that substantially more detrimental analysis, but here, it's not that pre-existing non-conforming structure.

[Speaker 7] (30:52 - 30:53)
Because it is conforming.

[Speaker 1] (30:53 - 30:54)
Yes.

[Speaker 10] (30:55 - 31:42)
I just wanted to make sure you guys brought the attention down to five. In application for dimensional special permit, prior to being filed with the town clerk, it basically, what it says to me is that they can expand over an existing structure, as long as they don't go beyond the structure. And then, if you look up the definition of a structure, a platform is a structure, in the definitions of our bylaws.

[Speaker 1] (31:43 - 32:25)
Right, I remember when this change happened, and we had that limitation, and it hasn't been raised about that time frame, but I think that's a very good point. So, we adopted it, but it's saying, okay, any project described in the app, so if the relief, or an application for dimensional special permit, but that was, you would have needed a dimensional special permit at the time, but it was filed before 2009 here, which is the building permit without zoning relief.

[Speaker 4] (32:25 - 32:47)
See, one thing that's entirely clear from this conversation is that this, the LARTA case, this is complicated stuff, this is confusing. It is. Okay, this is confusing stuff.

So, I can tell you right now, I'm not prepared. When I came in here today, I didn't think that this would apply, even if you thought about the LARTA in the context of this situation.

[Speaker 6] (32:47 - 32:48)
And I just thought about it.

[Speaker 4] (32:50 - 33:27)
To me, it's a slippery slope that I'm not prepared to go down, because I don't know if we do this here and say, you can put a roof on this. I'm a fundable author. I don't know if that could implicate many other provisions.

If we throw out this ordinance, which is 2.3.8.2, then we don't know what it means. And I can only imagine there's probably other ordinances that will be called into question. I'm not prepared to go down that road.

And maybe not even with town council, because let's face it, town council is just a lawyer's opinion. It's just an opinion.

[Speaker 7] (33:27 - 33:38)
That's all it is. Well, unless there's a roof on something from that same case, once the roof is there, we've been told they can build a story on it, and they can enclose it.

[Speaker 1] (33:39 - 33:47)
So long as it's not substantially more detrimental. So let's say you put a roof on this, and then you wanted to put a second floor, thereafter, you have to come back here.

[Speaker 7] (33:47 - 33:49)
Or you wanted to close it in to make it a second floor.

[Speaker 1] (33:49 - 34:01)
But you still have to come back if that were the case. So if it were permitted, if we had the jurisdiction, and I'm saying it's a big if, nobody here is agreeing to that yet.

[Speaker 5] (34:01 - 34:16)
The question in front of you is just the question of this roof. We're not talking about what could happen in the future, which would also have to come before this court. We haven't gotten there yet.

So I don't think it's fair to make a decision at this stage based on some future question that I don't have any intention of ever asking.

[Speaker 1] (34:17 - 34:24)
Mr. Simon, if you just bear with me for a minute. It's not that we're trying to pick on your petition. I just told you, we haven't done this in 20 years.

[Speaker 4] (34:26 - 34:42)
And we were pretty clear at the last, I think it was the last time this was done, we were pretty clear as to what the concern was at the first meeting. So I was surprised to see the plan that we got after what we had discussed in May.

[Speaker 1] (34:42 - 35:29)
And when I saw the plan, that's what got me thinking a bit last night about the Boalta case and whether it applies to this. And I'm still confused by the case. But to your point, my interpretation on a Boalta-type special permit would be if the board made a finding that it was a change that was permitted because it was not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity.

That blesses that change. Any other change, you've got to come back, and it's that same analysis. Is it substantially more detrimental?

But Andy's point is really good.

[Speaker 3] (35:30 - 36:46)
I want to make a point, I want to address Heather's point. Yeah. If this had a roof over this porch, it was there now, and she was looking for a second story, we could do that because we've already established that it's part of the footprint by having the roof over the porch below.

So the second story wouldn't trouble me, albeit, I don't know, we're not talking about it here, but the concept of putting a second story, because the roof, when you roofed it, you made it into the calculation, covered a footprint. We're changing the definition of how we've historically commented on footprints, we're throwing out the 20% dimensional special permit, because then everybody can go over, if their stairs are within, you know, the thing's set back 16 feet from a 20-foot setback, and then you've got another set of stairs that protrude out 10 feet coming down, which you can do, now you can build on top of that because those stairs are there. I mean, let's put it somewhat then.

We just threw them in after by our...

[Speaker 1] (36:47 - 37:08)
I think a bit of the distinction is, what I was trying to point out, is there's a difference between a pre-existing nonconformity that predates zoning, 48 section 6, and a permitted change, which is not a pre-existing. It's still, you know...

[Speaker 14] (37:08 - 37:15)
In this addition, this new deck is a permitted, it's not a pre-existing. The new deck is new, right?

[Speaker 1] (37:16 - 38:01)
Well, if the front stairs here were changed, and there was a building... and if there was a determination made that zoning relief wasn't required, there's still the issue of, could there be a zoning challenge on that? I've got that case in another jurisdiction where we've got a conversion of a structure to a house, and that was done with the building permit, and we're looking for enforcement for the building inspector to find that it needs to go.

[Speaker 7] (38:02 - 38:15)
Hey, Mark? Real quick, the pre-existing nonconforming, would you say the stoop is nonconforming? It's conforming, right, because it doesn't have a roof.

They can build a deck anywhere they want.

[Speaker 1] (38:15 - 38:25)
Subject to the limitations that we have in our bylaw that say... I mean, I don't even know how close this stoop is because it doesn't show on the plan.

[Speaker 15] (38:25 - 38:25)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (38:26 - 39:08)
So are projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open and enclosed fire escapes and light projections, which do not project more than 5 feet from the line of the foundation. This looks like it goes more than 5 feet, right? And unenclosed steps, unroofed porches and the like, which do not project more than 10 feet beyond the line of the foundation.

I don't know if it's 10 feet or not. Do not comply with the yard regulation otherwise provided for the district in which the structure is built, provided that a 5-foot setback from all sides of your property lines is maintained. I don't know from the plan whether or not what's there existing is...

[Speaker 3] (39:08 - 39:15)
Most likely it's 10 feet. It's probably about 10 feet. If the 16-7 is the bay window...

[Speaker 1] (39:15 - 39:15)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (39:16 - 39:20)
No, you got to... The stairs are probably 4 feet wide, you know.

[Speaker 1] (39:21 - 39:27)
But it doesn't... The survey plan doesn't show us proof that it is.

[Speaker 3] (39:27 - 39:48)
But also, Mark, you're saying that, okay, that's the non-conforming. But then they permitted that notch, which would make it non-conforming. We couldn't have the roof go over the notch because that's what you're saying doesn't have, you know, a permitted position as opposed to a non-conforming.

So she couldn't have the notch.

[Speaker 1] (39:52 - 40:07)
Right, but if she couldn't have it but it was... There was a building permit that issued, that doesn't mean that the zoning board is bound to then further the non-conformity, which shouldn't have been permitted.

[Speaker 3] (40:10 - 40:21)
Right, that's what we'd be furthering, a non-conformity. Yeah, okay. We're not going anywhere on this tonight.

[Speaker 1] (40:21 - 40:23)
No, no, I think we need to...

[Speaker 4] (40:23 - 40:55)
It's worth mentioning that the house appears to be unique. It's different from the other houses on the street. Significantly different.

And, you know, I don't know about those other houses that have porches in them, when they were built or whether they had those porches on there originally. It looks like it. With this house, the design of the house significantly is unique compared to the other houses on the street.

[Speaker 5] (40:55 - 41:50)
Based on the research that we've done, all of the houses on our block were built in about the same 10-year period, including our house, which was about 1895. Our house, I know, has gone under a number of different renovations, including the exterior. There was a fire at some point, I understand, 70 years well before I lived there, and so there's been some structural changes to the exterior as well as the interior.

I don't know whether there was a covered porch at one point. My understanding is that there may have been actually even a wraparound porch at one point, according to one of the neighbors. Obviously not in my 10-year of living there, which we purchased the house in 2013, and it's looked like what you see in this photograph since we purchased it until the masonry began to crumble and we had no choice but to fix it.

[Speaker 1] (41:51 - 42:06)
So, I mean, I'd like to—I know Andy thinks that the answer is going to be no, but I'd like to hear what Robin Stein has to say about the law enforcement.

[Speaker 5] (42:09 - 43:50)
We've been in this circle now for—just to kind of play upon your sympathies to the extent that— and I understand that you're trying to work within the confines of law where you see things could potentially slip on a slippery slope, but I beg of you to consider the position of the homeowner where we have now been under construction with this. We've been seeking the proper permits. We've been asking people to provide us with whatever information we need to bring to you to ensure that we can get this over the finish line for over a year.

And every time we come back, there's some other question that needs to be answered. It's gone on a really long time. I'm about—I mean, this is costing me enormous amounts of money.

I've got a pile of lumber in my front yard. My neighbors at this point—I know postcards went out to the neighborhood to see if anyone would be concerned if we did put this construction in place. There was no comments received from any of our neighbors.

In fact, what I hear from my neighbors is that they would like our pile of lumber to be out of our front yard, which I would too, and I would like that to be in the roof, which would then conform with what the rest of the structures in my neighborhood look like. There have been other structures built in our neighborhood that I think run awfully close to the line of what should have been permitted, and yet they are there. And this seems to be like a bit of a tentative teacup.

So what can you help me with here? Am I going to come back next month after a year and a half where I've been told repeatedly, okay, just get us this one more thing and we'll be able to move this forward, and then I'm going to be told all this time I've wasted all this money and time? I mean, thousands of dollars I'm in here at this point.

[Speaker 1] (43:50 - 45:41)
Ms. Simon, thank you. I'm going to read for you our minutes from the meeting from May 24th, okay? Third line says, after your contractor explained the relief being sought, it was T.J. Hutchings, the board explained that relief can only be granted up to 16 feet and not beyond. Additionally, they would like to see a sketch of overhang. You presented to us a plan. It doesn't show the overhang being 16 feet from the front yard setback.

So that's what we asked for in May, okay? I've took it upon myself to see if I could find another way that you might be able to get this relief, okay? But what we asked for in May isn't what we received.

So I'm going to take exception with that, you know, we're sending you in a wild goose chase. We definitely can give you relief 16 feet from the front yard setback because we do that regularly. It's the what I see as extraordinary relief that we haven't granted in 20 years that I've been on the board and Dan's been on the board and Andy's been on the board to permit a covered porch within the setback beyond the 20% dimensional special permit authority that we have to grant.

So I'm trying to find a way, and there's a lot of concern because it would be an extraordinary change. I'm sorry it's happening on your petition, but if you want that relief for what we've done for 20 years, which is to give you 20% from the setback requirement being 16 feet from the property line, we can do that. We don't have a plan, as we asked for, that shows it, but that's all I see that we can do.

I'm willing to ask town council to see if there's another way for us to do it, but I can't do it without...

[Speaker 3] (45:42 - 45:42)
Hey, Mark.

[Speaker 1] (45:42 - 45:43)
Yes, Andy.

[Speaker 3] (45:43 - 46:06)
Mark, essentially, if you look at the picture of the house with the stone steps, if you ran across, took the roofline and ran it all the way across, you could have a covered landing spot, but the stairs will not be covered. Stairs will be covered, but you'd have an overlay.

[Speaker 5] (46:06 - 46:07)
It would seem like about a foot.

[Speaker 3] (46:08 - 46:41)
I mean, it's like an umbrella would cover me more. Look, you can go 16 feet, but I'm saying you're 16'7 from the property line to the foundation. So, you know, that's 16.

I was just saying that's what you can run across with your soffit, et cetera. And, you know, but the stairs don't get covered under the zoning by-law as we interpreted it or as it's written today, unfortunately.

[Speaker 5] (46:41 - 46:50)
Well, I beckon you to check with town council on this. I mean, to grant permission for a 6-inch roof is absurd.

[Speaker 4] (46:52 - 47:12)
You see, we need to get... It's a real concern for us as to what we do because lawyers come before this board all the time, and if we do something extraordinary, they will point to that, and they say, well, you did that here, and we set a precedent. So we have to be careful with our decisions for that reason.

[Speaker 5] (47:13 - 47:58)
I am a lawyer, so I do understand the concept of precedent, and I understand the concerns that are being put here. I also understand the, you know, I'm struggling to understand how the last precedent that I sent along doesn't exempt it with respect to the stairs, and that the stairs, you know, per the definitions within the ordinance do seem to qualify as a structure. So I guess, you know, we are viewing this differently.

I understand that the interpretation of this EDA may have been different in the way that I'm setting it forth. I don't think that it necessarily throws the entire ordinance into the trash the way that you're describing it, but, you know, I respectfully defer to the town council. It's all I seem to be able to do here.

[Speaker 1] (48:02 - 48:12)
Well, I'd like to get that opinion, and if you want to submit something to town council in support of your position, you're welcome to do that. Does anyone have any objection to me asking town council for an opinion on this?

[Speaker 7] (48:12 - 48:13)
No, I don't.

[Speaker 5] (48:13 - 48:15)
I think we need these measurements, though.

[Speaker 1] (48:15 - 48:17)
And I think we do, too. I think town council is going to need them.

[Speaker 5] (48:17 - 48:32)
I think the measures need to be on there. They need to be very explicit in terms of what it is. I mean, understanding that we obtained the first plot plan prior to the reconstruction of the porch, obtaining another plot plan will cost me another $5,000.

[Speaker 3] (48:34 - 48:35)
No, it won't.

[Speaker 5] (48:35 - 48:37)
It will, and it did.

[Speaker 7] (48:39 - 48:47)
I don't know if you can go back to that first person who already did the plot plan and just get a measurement from that front of your porch.

[Speaker 5] (48:48 - 49:37)
I mean, I think that plot plan was, I see that you've got 6-2 on the date, but that plot plan was submitted significantly earlier. It was last year. So I think at this point, they would probably consider the timing to have run.

They would need to come back out again. I mean, as a result, perhaps, of the pandemic and everyone being stuck in their house and staying in the same four walls, construction resources are incredibly tight. So these surveyors, many surveyors, the only reason I was able to get a surveyor was by pulling strings and trying to get some favors.

Many of them are unavailable, period. And so I apologize for the background music here. But these things aren't, it's not a small thing, and it is extremely expensive.

[Speaker 7] (49:37 - 49:46)
Well, the problem is you're asking for relief in the front yard setback, but there's no measurement to tell us how much relief you're even asking for. So there's, I mean, it's impossible to make a determination.

[Speaker 1] (49:47 - 50:04)
And the requirements in our regulations, as to what's required for the application, that it should show that dimension, the setback. You're asking for, it doesn't, it doesn't, it shows the cutout. It doesn't show what's there, that understands there currently.

[Speaker 5] (50:04 - 50:17)
It was the plot plan that was submitted before we got the permit to rebuild the porch. So what you're saying now is that you need another plot plan created so that we can demonstrate the contours of the current porch.

[Speaker 1] (50:17 - 50:19)
Well, you should have a plot plan for the building.

[Speaker 5] (50:19 - 50:50)
Another $4,000 for another plot plan. I just want to be very clear as to what it is you're asking me for, because I do feel like, and I appreciate your position, and I appreciate that we, you know, that you feel that you've been clear with me, but it doesn't, it doesn't feel that way to me. So if you're asking me to go get another plot plan, I am now on the hook to go spend another $4,000 to get another plot plan.

But I would like to know that that is what you need from me, and I have to weigh and balance. I mean, I'm $10,000 in, I've got a half-constructed porch.

[Speaker 7] (50:51 - 51:03)
Well, I guess that is something you have to weigh. I mean, we just need, I don't think you need a whole new plot plan. I think you just need someone to come and tell you those dimensions and add it to the plot plan.

I mean, I have four. The person who did this one, the person who did this one.

[Speaker 4] (51:03 - 51:14)
What we need is the distance from the front lot line to the stoop, to what is called the stoop, which is that line along the right edge of the stairs. We need to know how far is that from the front lot line.

[Speaker 5] (51:15 - 51:16)
Does this need to be performed by...

[Speaker 4] (51:16 - 51:23)
I thought that was clear from Amay. I thought we made that clear from Amay, that we needed to know that. Yes, we needed to know that we wanted to see a show...

[Speaker 5] (51:24 - 51:46)
And then a side view rendering. I did go back and forth with Marissa Meaney, and I don't mean to put her in a difficult position. She was nothing but lovely, but I did go back and forth and ask her when I sent over the rendering, is this everything that you need?

And I received, I have the emails. I heard, yes, this is what we need. I don't need anything else.

I spoke to the building inspector. He told me the same thing. Yes, this is what we need.

[Speaker 7] (51:50 - 52:01)
Well, it's hard. We were just finding out now that the shape isn't the same as what's there. We didn't...

I mean, I don't think Marissa would have any way of knowing that the plot plan you submitted wasn't the current, you know...

[Speaker 3] (52:01 - 52:02)
I mean, that's...

[Speaker 7] (52:02 - 52:04)
I mean, how do you know? How could you know that?

[Speaker 3] (52:04 - 52:18)
You base an approval or an understanding on this, and then, in the time between that, then we add something else. I mean... So can I chime in for one second?

[Speaker 6] (52:18 - 52:24)
The original permit that we pulled to get the deck replaced talked about...

[Speaker 1] (52:24 - 52:30)
Could I first have you identify yourself? I can't see who's there. I don't know who it is.

I have to make a record of the meeting.

[Speaker 6] (52:30 - 52:32)
Sorry. This is T.J. Hutchings.

[Speaker 1] (52:34 - 52:35)
Hi.

[Speaker 6] (52:36 - 52:45)
So when we pulled the original permit to replace the masonry steps with the deck, we talked about removing that notch that was existing.

[Speaker 3] (52:48 - 53:03)
Do we have a plan that has those dimensions? When you replaced the deck and replaced the stairs, did you have a survey showing the dimensions of, you know, the setback of the front of the student? We didn't have to.

[Speaker 6] (53:04 - 53:11)
The building department did not require us to do that. So, no, we did not do that. Okay.

[Speaker 10] (53:20 - 53:47)
So, Mark, just real quick. Yeah. I didn't issue the permit on this one, but typically when we're in a front yard setback, we only let them put back exactly what was there without coming to the board for relief because it would have needed it.

You know, just for your... Like I said, as the building department, we usually only let them put exactly what was there. That's how we grandfather it.

But I did not issue this one, but I can look into the paperwork.

[Speaker 1] (53:47 - 54:06)
Yeah, that'd be great. And I would have expected that I'd see the... You know, we don't have the building permit or the plans that were submitted as part of that, as part of your petition.

So that makes it difficult as well.

[Speaker 7] (54:08 - 54:28)
And I think it's fair to say that, you know, because I know she's concerned about costs and spending more money on a plot plan. There's no guarantee that if we have this dimension and we talk to town council, we come back, we're going to say, oh, yeah, build your roof. You know, the town council's advice could be no, don't build it.

[Speaker 1] (54:28 - 54:30)
Yeah, that we might not have authority.

[Speaker 7] (54:30 - 54:31)
Yeah, that we don't have that authority.

[Speaker 1] (54:31 - 54:45)
That a lot of cases doesn't apply to this. So if you want to wait before you spend any money, I'm going to ask tomorrow for town council to give us an opinion. I probably have within 10 days.

And I'll keep you informed.

[Speaker 7] (54:45 - 54:50)
And even just a rough idea of what that dimension is, you can go out with, I mean, it seems like something...

[Speaker 1] (54:50 - 55:01)
For Robin's analysis, she won't, because it's just a question, can we go beyond the 20% of a dimensional special permit and just apply for relief?

[Speaker 4] (55:01 - 55:31)
I'm looking at the application. It looks like I have the original application. Looks like it.

And attached to that is a plot plan. Yep. That has a slightly different...

It's dated October the 6th of 2021, two days after the other one, October 4th, 2021. And this one looks like someone added this 9.6 is indicated here. Do you guys have this one?

I don't have that one. It's 9.6 with an arrow. And that's probably the dimension.

[Speaker 13] (55:32 - 55:33)
I can probably pull it up.

[Speaker 4] (55:35 - 55:53)
I just noticed this. So is that the one that's titled updated plot plan on the website? On the town's website?

[Speaker 13] (55:54 - 55:55)
It's...

[Speaker 4] (55:55 - 55:56)
That one's a plot plan.

[Speaker 13] (55:56 - 55:57)
Yeah, that one's a plot plan. And then the one that you have...

[Speaker 4] (55:57 - 55:59)
Then it was one that's called updated.

[Speaker 13] (55:59 - 56:03)
Yes. The one that we have in front of us tonight is the updated plot plan.

[Speaker 4] (56:04 - 56:08)
The one that was just up there is the October 4th one, I think.

[Speaker 13] (56:08 - 56:16)
Right. So the one that I had shared previously is the updated one.

[Speaker 4] (56:16 - 56:17)
Yeah, that one.

[Speaker 2] (56:17 - 56:18)
Even though, ironically...

[Speaker 4] (56:18 - 56:23)
That must be the updated one, right? Because it's two days newer than the other one.

[Speaker 7] (56:23 - 56:30)
But it's submitted in Marissa's catalog, and it was submitted after. So for her, it's the updated one.

[Speaker 1] (56:32 - 56:41)
And I don't know who put these measurements. It's typed in a 6.6 number and a 9.6. So this one I have is the updated one, and then let me...

[Speaker 4] (56:41 - 56:45)
Right, right. That's the original one, I guess.

[Speaker 3] (56:45 - 57:21)
There's another one. But, hey, guys, the bottom line is if 16.7 is where the bay window, the front of the bay window is stored, currently we've only let that go to 16 feet. So essentially that's the line of what you can have as an overhang covered.

You can have the steps beyond that, but that would have to be uncovered. We've never been able to let someone fill in anything beyond that. And we've turned down oodles of people.

[Speaker 15] (57:21 - 57:22)
Yep.

[Speaker 3] (57:22 - 58:24)
You know, over 7 inches, like, on Bayview Drive. You know, it's 16 feet is 16 feet. That's how far your front overhang can be, period.

You know, the stairs have to be uncovered based on this notch plan, and half the stoop would be uncovered. That's just the reality of the way the house is set. Right, because if we don't – if we're looking for more than the dimensional special permit, is that – If you go down Middlesex Avenue, I'd venture to say that many of the houses look like this.

Because you can see, if you look at the peak of the roof, either that bay window turret is an addition, because they would never – you look at the way that meets the crown of the roof. You know, there's been work done here, but these – the houses that have front stoops, the stairs are generally not covered. They're outside of the stoops.

[Speaker 1] (58:26 - 58:45)
So, Ms. Simon, do you see this plan that – from May 3rd that was filed that's on the board? There's a 9.6-feet number. Do you know who put that on there?

You're on mute.

[Speaker 3] (58:48 - 58:50)
That looks like the edge of the stairs.

[Speaker 1] (58:53 - 58:54)
I think we might have lost her.

[Speaker 4] (58:55 - 58:57)
I think she kind of shows you, like, something outside.

[Speaker 1] (58:58 - 58:59)
I think so, but I think she lost her connection.

[Speaker 6] (59:00 - 59:00)
Yeah.

[Speaker 14] (59:04 - 59:09)
But I don't understand what the 9.6 mile is, unless it is to where these stairs are. What else is that number?

[Speaker 3] (59:10 - 59:42)
If you look at the picture, you know, with the stoop, you know, the aerial, you see with the 16.7, logic would tell me that there's, like, another 7 feet between the stairs and part of the deck. So in front of the stoop is a 9.6. We're not allowing a covered roof over 9.6 again. They decide, well, you know what, now I want to fill it in and make it a roof.

You know, we're out in the street. Because once they cover the thing, they can fill it in.

[Speaker 1] (59:43 - 59:52)
Let me give Ms. Simon another moment to see if she gets her connection back. And then we'll, we lost her.

[Speaker 14] (59:57 - 59:59)
She did look like she left the house.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:00 - 1:00:07)
Is Mr. Hutchings still here, or is he on the same line? No, I'm still here.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:09 - 1:00:15)
So we lost Ms. Simon. Ms. Simon wanted to show us something outside.

[Speaker 6] (1:00:17 - 1:00:21)
I don't believe she's in Swampscott tonight.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:22 - 1:00:33)
So I think what we need to do is to continue this matter, but I've got to get the okay of the petitioner. But Mr. Hutchings, I believe you have authority to agree to a continuous.

[Speaker 5] (1:00:34 - 1:00:40)
I'm back now. I'm sorry I was thrown off. What is the question?

I'm now back.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:41 - 1:01:19)
Well, we were talking about this 9.6 number, the 6.6, and Mr. Rose is bringing up the point that we have absolutely never given that type of relief. We haven't given any relief to go beyond the 20% number in the setback. What I'd like to do is, only if you consent to continue for another month and get Attorney Stein's opinion, I don't know that that will be persuasive or not.

I'd suggest you wait until you get that before you spend any more money on the project to see what she says, whether we have authority or not.

[Speaker 4] (1:01:20 - 1:01:27)
And it's not binding either. The opinion of town council is not binding. It's not a Supreme Judicial Court decision.

Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:27 - 1:01:28)
It's just an opinion.

[Speaker 4] (1:01:29 - 1:01:32)
Any of the members of the board are free to agree or disagree.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:34 - 1:01:50)
And you would need four members to agree with you to get your relief if it is a Section 6 special permit that you need. If it were merely a fine, which I'm sure it won't be, it would be less. I think it would be three, but you need four.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:50 - 1:02:39)
Okay. So I guess I'm just trying to read the room here. I mean, I can't – I don't think I have any other choice but to say yes, we should continue and ask for the opinion of town council.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear on how many members at this point are in favor of this or not, or whether you would be persuaded by town council. It seems to me that there are at least a couple of you who are dead set against this for precedent purposes. So I'm wondering if this is – does this exercise serve any purpose, or are you telling me right now that regardless of what town council says, you're not going to move in favor of this roof?

I mean, I'm just trying to figure out – I don't want to waste any of our time or money.

[Speaker 7] (1:02:39 - 1:03:44)
Yeah, no, that's a fair question. I can say that I probably, regardless of town council, would be – if they said yes, you can increase the nonconforming – a previous nonconformity, I would say that's what was existing before you extended the deck. So in that – I would agree with that.

If town council did indeed say yes, you can put a porch over a preexisting roof, I would say okay, but that would not include that new portion that you added. So if without that new portion you don't want to do it, then – So you're saying that you would permit a roof absent the notch. Right, which maybe aesthetically wouldn't make sense, so you would do sort of a roof that was not as – didn't come out all the way to the end of your – only came out as far as what was existing before you added to the porch.

Right.

[Speaker 4] (1:03:44 - 1:03:53)
You can come out 3.3 feet from the – No, she's going to get to – Oh, 16.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:54 - 1:03:59)
16 feet comes off, so it's just about a little bit more than where the bay window is.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:05 - 1:04:40)
So – and I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand and be very clear about this. So it seems to me that what I'm hearing is that if the town council says, yes, you can do this, that EDA would be willing to grant relief to permit a roof overhang up to where the previous porch, exclusive of the notch, existed, which would mean probably, unless I wanted a T-shaped roof, and you understand the absurdity of that, but okay, I would have a slightly shorter roof.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:42 - 1:04:53)
I think it's still a bit premature for me to say. I really want to see what town council had to say. If you were looking for a vote tonight, my vote would be no, that we don't have the jurisdiction.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:55 - 1:05:10)
Mark, I'm not feeling – I just am not feeling good with the conception. If, in fact, the stairs come out to 9'6", unless you went up and down the entire street and showed me that everybody was 10 feet off the front yard.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:10 - 1:05:12)
Right, you're not getting any more than that setback.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:12 - 1:05:47)
You're just blowing up the bylaw. I'm very sorry about that. 9'6 is like killing me.

It's like – I just don't see it. That means everybody would give 20% to it. I'm not saying I understand she's not doing it, but everybody you give 20% to.

Then they go to 16 feet, and then they drop their stairs down, which brings it down to 10 feet, and then they go and roof it, and then they can fill it in, and it's like, why do we have setbacks?

[Speaker 15] (1:05:48 - 1:05:49)
Yep.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:50 - 1:05:54)
I'm just not feeling the mass of the way that this is being said.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:54 - 1:06:09)
To be fair, it's a very fair question of why we have setbacks the way that we do in a densely populated town where most of the structures were nonconforming when the ordinance was initially enacted.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:11 - 1:06:12)
I'm on your side.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:12 - 1:06:14)
I understand this is for new construction, but this is not.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:15 - 1:06:51)
I'm on your side. I understand. Variance is not sacrosanct for me like it is for some of the lawyers on the board because we're dealing with zoning bylaws that came after everything was built, not the other way around.

And the variance gives you the ability to correct something that couldn't be all inclusive, but I just don't. Nine foot six setback covered reducing the front yard in half is just not. I'm going to move it around.

I'm just not feeling it.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:51 - 1:07:27)
Yeah. I think, though, that we should just go through the exercise of getting the opinion from town council. I'd say don't do anything further on the project assignment until we get the opinion, and then if we don't have any jurisdiction or authority to act, then it's going to be a dimensional special permit that 20 percent, 16 feet.

If we have more jurisdiction, then it's an analysis that the board would need to make if they agree with the opinion of town council. And I'm likely I generally listen to that opinion of town council, but nobody is bound to do so. It's just one person's opinion.

[Speaker 11] (1:07:28 - 1:07:28)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:28 - 1:07:31)
But I'm only going to do it if I have your agreement to continue the petition.

[Speaker 5] (1:07:33 - 1:07:40)
I don't think that I really have any other choice unless I plan on scrapping the whole project right now. So go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:41 - 1:07:46)
Okay. So I'll take that as your agreement that you'll sign a continuing. So what's our next meeting date?

[Speaker 13] (1:07:47 - 1:07:55)
September. Because the board is not meeting in August. So we are meeting September 20th.

[Speaker 15] (1:07:57 - 1:07:59)
I mean, okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:07:59 - 1:07:59)
All right.

[Speaker 11] (1:08:03 - 1:08:04)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:04 - 1:08:18)
Okay. Thank you. We'll make a motion to continue the matter until September 20th.

I'll keep you informed of what I receive from town council. All right. Okay.

So I have second on that motion.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:18 - 1:08:18)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:19 - 1:08:22)
I'm going to do a roll call me. Yes. Dan.

Yes. Heather.

[Speaker 11] (1:08:23 - 1:08:23)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:23 - 1:08:25)
Andy. Yes. Paula.

[Speaker 15] (1:08:25 - 1:08:26)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:27 - 1:08:38)
Okay. Thank you. So Marissa, maybe you can send the tape to Robin and ask her.

She can give us an opinion on. The issue. Sure.

Okay. I'm sure she'll follow along. Okay.

Definitely.

[Speaker 14] (1:08:38 - 1:08:39)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:39 - 1:08:57)
Great. Thanks so much. Okay.

So. The next matter on our agenda. Is eight Denison.

2211. Now being handled a court LLC. And now being at the 7th.

Yeah.

[Speaker 11] (1:09:01 - 1:09:02)
Yep. That one's being continued.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:02 - 1:09:03)
Oh, that one's being continued.

[Speaker 13] (1:09:03 - 1:09:08)
I have a signed form by attorney Lynch. So I'll have to send that to you. I meant to print it out for your sake.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:08 - 1:09:10)
So I'm going to make a motion to continue 2211.

[Speaker 15] (1:09:10 - 1:09:11)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:11 - 1:09:17)
The September date. We'll have a second on that. So I'll be yes.

Dan. Yes. Heather.

[Speaker 15] (1:09:18 - 1:09:18)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:18 - 1:09:20)
Andy. Yes. Paula.

[Speaker 15] (1:09:21 - 1:09:21)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:22 - 1:09:47)
Okay. So the next one will be 24 Crossman petition. Going to 12.

Now being at 7 15 PM. Andrew Broughton's petition. Andrew.

Here. Yep. We are here.

Okay. So tell us about your. Petition.

I know we had one recently. Very similar. On Crossman.

Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (1:09:47 - 1:09:47)
We have Rob.

[Speaker 15] (1:09:48 - 1:09:49)
Here as well.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:49 - 1:09:51)
He's going to speak on our behalf. Okay.

[Speaker 8] (1:09:52 - 1:10:09)
Rob. The builder on the project. We are looking for.

For an addition that we are looking to construct. In front of the board. Because the addition will be greater than.

15% of the existing floor area. Of the existing house.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:13 - 1:11:04)
Okay. Just a second. Okay.

Is there anyone that. Is here to. Speak.

Or ask questions about this petition. So if I could have. If I could have your name and your address.

I've had to go to microphone. So that we can record it. Great.

[Speaker 10] (1:11:12 - 1:11:23)
Rick. Dexter. 33 Crosman.

I just want to. Send my support. On this addition.

It's just. It just adds value to the neighborhood.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:24 - 1:11:39)
All right. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else.

I wanted to address this petition. Here at home. Use the.

Raise your hand. Feature.

[Speaker 15] (1:11:42 - 1:11:42)
Check.

[Speaker 14] (1:11:47 - 1:11:50)
Not seeing anyone. I don't see any hands raised. From our zoomers.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:51 - 1:12:24)
Okay. Just going to look at this. Plan a little bit.

Last night. Okay. So maintaining.

The same. Side yard setbacks. We have plenty of room in the back.

Anyone on the board. Have any. Questions about this one.

Yep. This is. Like the ball.

This is the ball. The one that came up. Crossman before.

[Speaker 4] (1:12:26 - 1:12:30)
We did the other class. It is the same.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:30 - 1:12:55)
I can't remember if I did it or I think. Yeah. Yeah.

But I. Sure. We've got the decision.

But it was. We're making a section six. Special permit.

That they're. Not substantial. More detrimental.

So hearing none on a. Anyone that wants to make a. Motion.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:00 - 1:13:03)
We're going to do that one. We did the previous.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:04 - 1:13:10)
I can't remember if I think I may have done it. But it was Chris. Lucas who wrote it.

Did a good job on the decision.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:11 - 1:13:12)
Oh, he did. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:15 - 1:13:32)
Do you. Interested in that? I'll send it to you.

If you want. All right. But I see this.

Substantially. More detrimental. So first, let me make a motion.

To close the public hearing. Do I have a second on that?

[Speaker 4] (1:13:33 - 1:13:33)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:34 - 1:13:43)
So do a roll call. So. I am.

Yes. Dan. Yes.

Heather. Andy. Yes.

And Paula. Yes.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:45 - 1:14:20)
Okay. I. So Dan.

The motion. Okay. So I will make a motion.

To approve the petition of. Andrew Broughton. For a special permit.

And a site plan special permit. In connection with plans to construct. A two story addition.

At the property located at 24. Crossman Ave. The. Condition to be built.

In substantial. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:28 - 1:14:37)
So. I'll second. That motion.

I'm going to do. A roll call on it. Dan.

Yes. Yes. Heather.

[Speaker 15] (1:14:38 - 1:14:38)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:39 - 1:16:14)
Andy. Yes. Paula.

Yes. Okay. So you have your relief.

Okay. The next matters. 22.

1355 Kensington. Now being up to seven. 20 PM.

It's petition 22. 13. They were here on that petition.

So anyone here for this petition? Yes. Oh, you're right here.

I'm sorry. How are you? Good.

Thank you. So are you. Homeowner.

Yes. Well, that is. All right.

So if you tell us about. the project?

[Speaker 9] (1:16:15 - 1:16:25)
Yes, we're planning on building a 12 by 16 foot deck on the west side of the property.

[Speaker 12] (1:16:27 - 1:16:42)
It's got stairs leading down to the front yard that cover the whole width of the deck and then a four foot wide staircase down to the bottom yard at the bottom of the house.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:43 - 1:18:02)
So it meets the side yard setback. It's over 16 feet on the front yard setback which requires 20 feet. So you need a dimensional special permit for that front yard setback.

You're okay on the rear yard setback. Your lot is insufficient for frontage. It's 54.4 feet where 80 is required. So you're asking for relief for 20% of that front yard setback. So is there anyone that wanted to be heard about this petition? Could I just have your name and address please?

Okay. Did you get a copy of the plan? I just got a copy of the meeting.

You just got the notice? Okay. So do you have another copy with you sir?

I can look on with you.

[Speaker 15] (1:18:02 - 1:18:04)
You have an extra one? Great.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:04 - 1:19:16)
Can we get it up on the screen Mark? That'd be great idea too. It is up on the screen.

Can you see the screen here? So what he's asking for on this, so you're on the other side of Kensington right? So what he has is the property, the relief he's looking for is because the deck which looks to be in line with the existing dwelling other than the stairs is 16.3 feet from the front yard setback. The stairs will come down at 12.6 feet but we can give a dimensional special permit to allow the deck to be up to 16 feet from the front yard on the front lot line. So everything else appears to be conforming and setback just that front yard. So do you have an idea of how it lays out?

[Speaker 10] (1:19:17 - 1:19:22)
Yeah it's the front right corner basically. It shows proposed deck.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:22 - 1:20:32)
You see that? Okay. So it has some dimensions to show how far everything will be from the front lot line.

And this is the type of relief we customarily grant to petitioners when they ask we give up to that 20% of the relief on the setback. In fact we often do it with more than just a deck. We do it often with if it were even a two-story addition.

While you're looking at that I'm just gonna ask if there's anyone else that had questions that was on the zoom call.

[Speaker 11] (1:20:32 - 1:20:39)
Sure anyone who has a question or a comment you may use the raise your hand function and I can call on you.

[Speaker 12] (1:21:08 - 1:21:16)
So do you have any questions sir?

[Speaker 1] (1:21:16 - 1:21:19)
No. Okay thanks. Anyone from the board have any questions?

[Speaker 8] (1:21:21 - 1:21:21)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:22 - 1:21:27)
Okay so I'm gonna make a motion to close the public hearing. Have a second on that?

[Speaker 4] (1:21:27 - 1:21:28)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:28 - 1:21:32)
I'm gonna do a roll call. So on me yes. Close the public hearing.

Dan? Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 15] (1:21:33 - 1:21:33)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:33 - 1:21:34)
Paula?

[Speaker 15] (1:21:34 - 1:21:35)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:35 - 1:21:50)
Andy? Yes. Okay does anyone is anyone interested in making a motion for this petition?

I know Andy's going on vacation or is on started his vacation. I got him here by zoom. I'm out of state.

[Speaker 15] (1:21:51 - 1:21:52)
I can do it.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:52 - 1:21:53)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 7] (1:21:54 - 1:22:09)
I'm gonna make a motion to approve petition 20-13 to build a open deck as described in the submitted plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:11 - 1:22:27)
Yep to write the dimensional special permit 20 less than 20% to put it 16.3 feet. Great so I'll second that. I'm gonna do a roll call.

Heather?

[Speaker 15] (1:22:28 - 1:22:29)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:29 - 1:22:46)
On me yes. Dan? Yes.

Paula? Yes. Andy?

Yes. Okay so you have your relief and as I told the last petitioner there's a process by which decision will be filed and then there's a 20-day period to wait make sure there are no appeals. Okay?

[Speaker 3] (1:22:47 - 1:22:49)
Okay. So good luck with your project. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:51 - 1:23:06)
Okay so the next petition is 22-14 John Barnes for special permit for non-performing uses and or structures to have dormers and second floor at One Hillcrest Circle now being up to 730 p.m. Mr. Barnes here.

[Speaker 9] (1:23:08 - 1:25:06)
Mr. Chairman my name is John Kelty I'm an attorney I have offices at 40 Lowell Street and Peabody Mass and I appear on behalf of John Barnes and Elena Costello who are the owners of the property at One Hillcrest Drive in here in Swanskip Mass. We are seeking relief which would be result in the addition of a two additional dormers over an existing an existing porch that is at the property. Our plot plan that has been filed with the petition demonstrate that there is no extension beyond the existing footprint of the property.

There is no change in any dimensional relief as to the location of this these additions on the property. The plot plan demonstrates that there is a dormer already in the middle of the porch that is over the of the roof that's over the porch. We intend to fill in the areas one of which on your plot plan to the left of the existing dormer on the second floor.

We are it says porch that area will be filled in and to the right the box that is above the above the existing porch that too would be filled in. I do have which I did not have at the time that I was filing in order to make the deadline. I do have architectural plans that I think are helpful to the board.

And also I think that if Melissa were able to put the street view of the property up I think it makes it much easier to understand what's being done.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:07 - 1:25:08)
And if I porch now covered.

[Speaker 9] (1:25:09 - 1:25:10)
Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 12] (1:25:11 - 1:25:11)
Yes.

[Speaker 9] (1:25:12 - 1:25:13)
Complete.

[Speaker 12] (1:25:14 - 1:25:14)
Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (1:25:15 - 1:26:24)
Where. I feel fortunate that I'm not quite in the same circumstance as we saw the property was bought by Elena in in 2006 the property was built in 1920 there's no evidence of well certainly Elena did not undertake any kind of change to the premises. Additionally there's no evidence in the interior of the premises or from the exterior of the premises that any additions have been made to the premises.

And as I say that three window dormer actually will be removed. The roof that currently slopes down in kind of an arching manner will be removed and replaced with full shed dormer across the entire roof of the porch. And as I said maybe the file should reflect if the board is of an understanding but maybe the file would be better off if these architectures were.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:24 - 1:26:25)
We've got to get the architecture.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:26 - 1:26:39)
I think we need that because I was going to say the application was in I was going to say the application is incomplete without architectural drawings I don't even know what you're going to do. There's no I get the job that's all we have is the application. And yes I understand that.

Right. Is that all the way.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:40 - 1:26:42)
That's all I think there's anything else.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:42 - 1:26:46)
And we do have a requirement in our bylaw that there be. Did you have a plan.

[Speaker 7] (1:26:48 - 1:26:49)
I have plans.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:49 - 1:26:50)
Oh you do have plans.

[Speaker 7] (1:26:50 - 1:26:51)
I mean it's not that house stuff.

[Speaker 9] (1:26:51 - 1:26:59)
They were actually filed with the building department. I think Mr. Cummings had those and was probably kind enough to.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:59 - 1:27:00)
Oh you know what though.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:01 - 1:27:05)
So that's this is what I was confused about. The other one that they are.

[Speaker 13] (1:27:08 - 1:27:12)
That's oh yeah. Sorry I inter file those. Those are what I saw.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:12 - 1:27:17)
Highland had something about Highland is for the architectures are for Highland. That's coming up next.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:18 - 1:27:18)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:20 - 1:27:23)
Hillcrest I don't have any architectures. Oh I don't have anything for Hillcrest.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:24 - 1:27:27)
No I was confused about Highland.

[Speaker 13] (1:27:27 - 1:27:28)
Yeah it's up next 12 Highland Street.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:29 - 1:27:29)
It is.

[Speaker 14] (1:27:34 - 1:27:37)
Sure. I guess that's up to the board.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:37 - 1:27:38)
So you just have how many copies do you have.

[Speaker 9] (1:27:39 - 1:27:40)
This is one full set.

[Speaker 10] (1:27:47 - 1:27:49)
So. So do you have anything.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:50 - 1:27:56)
I don't have anything. It's just this two pager. It's the application and the plot plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:58 - 1:28:27)
So Jack the problem is if I don't have if we don't have the plans I don't know how we're giving everybody notice of what you're looking to do. I mean let me first ask if there's anyone that's here on this petition that had questions or wanted to be heard. Is there anyone.

The audience. How many people here. Let me just see if any of the notice of voters are here.

Use the raise your hand feature.

[Speaker 14] (1:28:37 - 1:28:38)
Nope not on Zoom.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:48 - 1:29:45)
We are pretty lax about you know not getting plans but usually at some point you know I mean you know a bylaw does say that an applicant for a special permit or variance shall submit a plan in substantial conformance with the requirements of Section 5 4 0 0 and that's the site plan special permit which gets very elaborate about plans. But so we don't hold applicants to that standard but we have to have some plan. So so I do is just no way I could evaluate this with just a plot plan in an application and then the application doesn't even have the most important information in it being the the gross floor area is missing from the application which is probably the you know the numbers that we want when we want to see the most for this kind of a project.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:49 - 1:29:49)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (1:29:49 - 1:29:57)
So it's really deficient. I think that it should be put over to the next meeting and proper plans.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:06 - 1:30:31)
So I understand it's just the dorm is going on top and that they're not extending any more than the existing nonconformity. But I understand Dan's concern and unfortunately we don't have an August meeting but I don't know that we can if we got it a little earlier.

[Speaker 9] (1:30:32 - 1:31:23)
I have to play. Yeah I understand that you didn't have them time. And I think that the these two areas to the left and right that gets removed gets filled up and we fill in and it becomes one straight line across the top.

That's what this that's what this plan reflects the gross floor area of the dwelling chain. Yes it will be increased but we are not increasing or decreasing our open space. Nor are we increasing nor be becoming any more nonconforming with respect to our footprint.

So it seems to me that we are in a very straightforward we have a very straightforward petition.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:23 - 1:31:29)
I think it is pretty straightforward. Yeah I think it is. But we you know we have to take your word for it.

We really don't haven't seen any plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:29 - 1:31:32)
Can I take a look at the floor with the gross floor area.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:32 - 1:31:41)
What is the increase in gross floor. I mean we need to know that I'm not particularly good at math but let me take a look and see.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:01 - 1:33:11)
Well because it's I still think they need to find a lot of case. All the changes are essentially going no further. What the case says is there an increase in nonconforming nature of existing nonconformity which the answer to that is no.

In that case no relief is required under a lot of there is an increase in nonconforming nature. It's a section 6 that will firm it with the nonconformity the nonconformities that he has here.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:11 - 1:33:18)
What's that what area and frontage is conforming.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:19 - 1:34:39)
He's not conforming as to front yard setback but it's not changing that. He's not conforming existing as to side yard setback but that's not changing. So we you know under a lot of this this is that what you know Robin said that we should first evaluate the relevant work determine if it is increasing the nonconforming nature of any existing nonconformity.

If the ZBA finds the negative no relief is necessary. So all we need to do is make a finding that the proposed work is not increasing any nonconforming nature of the existing nonconformity. We don't give anything so it is extraordinarily straightforward and if we can make that finding that based on the plot plan as long as the additions under the 35 feet he's not making asking for relief for height.

I think we don't need to give him relief. We just need to make a finding that it's not increasing the nonconforming nature. I'd be willing to make that motion based on this.

I know it's not our the ordinary course that we that we conduct ourselves in but we don't have another meeting to September and it is in my mind.

[Speaker 7] (1:34:39 - 1:34:44)
You know increase there's no shortage on that as far as.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:45 - 1:35:28)
What's the but the but the but the how the structure we can get it from the assessor's record as to what the existing gross floor area is and for an increase in gross floor area you know what would trigger relief it would need to be 800 square feet for site plan special permit. So we can we can do this so long as it's under 800 he's already got the dormer that's there that he's removing or adding to I guess removing so it's that counts was the net number so why don't why don't we give him the finding if it's more than 800 square feet he's got to come back for a site plan special permit. So I've seen.

[Speaker 9] (1:35:29 - 1:35:31)
Yes and I think that works for the building.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:33 - 1:37:05)
OK. So I'm going to be probably not probably not because he's already got a dormer that we all we have because it's it's it's such a small amount of relief that you know we have to speculate and the next time he's back he'll get the plan filed. So I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing for a second on that second.

I'm gonna take a roll call. So I'm a yes and yes. Other handy.

Yes. Paula. Yes.

I'm going to make a motion to make a finding on petition 22 14 that there is no increase in the nonconforming nature of the existing structure for the proposed work as no existing nonconformity is requesting relief so long as the increase in gross floor areas below 800 square feet no site plan special permit it's necessary and I'll write a decision that made that we made that finding. Do I have a second on that. Second.

So I'm a yes and other handy.

[Speaker 15] (1:37:06 - 1:37:06)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:06 - 1:37:29)
Paula. Yes. OK.

So I'm going to write a decision that just says to find that I understand that it's under that exception that we have under 48 6 in the Balalta case. So I'll do that and send a copy with the town clerk. OK.

[Speaker 9] (1:37:29 - 1:37:33)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your cooperation.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:35 - 1:38:12)
OK. The next petition is 20 to 15. One second.

22 15 or 12 Highland Street now being after 7 40 p.m. Is Mr. Is Dana Kent here.

[Speaker 6] (1:38:12 - 1:38:13)
Yeah. We're here.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:14 - 1:38:18)
I'm back. Why are you good. All right.

[Speaker 6] (1:38:18 - 1:38:58)
Can you tell us about your petition. All right. So basically we are looking to replace an old deck that is in disrepair and as part of that kind of rearrange the overall layout.

So currently if you look at that over to the right side the stairs come down alongside our neighbor's driveway. We're looking to relocate those stairs off to the back of the house. And then extend the deck to where the stairs currently are.

So I think currently it's nine feet. We'd be looking to extend out three feet to 12.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:02 - 1:39:50)
So the deck currently encroaches to five feet and you're looking for relief to get to three point two. But we have we have jurisdiction only to get you to six feet right because it's 20 percent on that side yard setback. Not sure if I'm missing something on on that.

Although it's an is the deck uncovered. Correct. And but the deck also has the uncovered can't be five feet from any lot line.

[Speaker 4] (1:39:50 - 1:39:58)
We've had this issue too right now. I know it's my feeling it's closer than five feet off the right.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:59 - 1:40:08)
And that's like a hard number that we can't whether we before we decided that we we give the 20 percent. I know we had that one before.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:16 - 1:40:20)
So just a second. It is a covered.

[Speaker 6] (1:40:21 - 1:40:45)
So in the back I guess the left portion there's an enclosed framed porch currently. We're looking to I guess just change that to us. It's currently fully enclosed.

We're as part of the rebuild of the deck we're going to turn that into a screened porch. So it's already currently covered. We're just looking to extend that.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:45 - 1:40:55)
I'm a little lost on it. So. So we have an existing deck.

Correct. That's remaining correct.

[Speaker 6] (1:40:55 - 1:40:58)
I don't know if you're welcome. I go up and show us on the screen.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:00 - 1:41:11)
Yeah that's fine. As long as we can understand it. So currently maybe show us on this one and this one might be better.

There's right in front of us.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:15 - 1:41:16)
Hopefully Paul or anybody can see OK.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:18 - 1:41:23)
Maybe you know I can explain it. Yeah. Can Paul and Andy see.

Yes.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:23 - 1:41:25)
I'll see what he's showing you.

[Speaker 11] (1:41:25 - 1:41:28)
I'll try and follow along and I can annotate here.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:29 - 1:41:33)
We do have a pointer. So what he's pointing to that'd be great if you get that Marissa.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:33 - 1:41:34)
That's right.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:34 - 1:41:36)
So why don't you show us what's there currently.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:36 - 1:41:46)
So this is currently our driveway. It comes down here. You know there's a little entranceway to a porch that currently runs from this line here.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:46 - 1:41:48)
Actually Marissa you're in the wrong spot there.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:48 - 1:41:49)
We've got to go slower.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:50 - 1:41:51)
So the driveways are at the right.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:51 - 1:41:55)
So this is the driveway. It comes down to about half way around the house.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:55 - 1:41:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:57 - 1:42:24)
Here. Yeah. So the deck extends all the way back here.

It goes around the back of the house. And then this portion. It's slanted right to this way.

Currently an enclosed rain porch. So it's all enclosed and roofed currently.

[Speaker 4] (1:42:24 - 1:42:26)
Which part of the patch enclosed and roofed.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:26 - 1:42:29)
The length of the slanted line is going up.

[Speaker 4] (1:42:30 - 1:42:32)
So the slanted lines indicate that it's covered?

[Speaker 6] (1:42:33 - 1:42:48)
Yes, so this is currently covered. This is just part of the already existing deck. We're looking to close to extend the coverage over this three feet out here to make it a screened-in room as opposed to fully enclosed.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:49 - 1:42:53)
So towards the center of the lot, you're looking to enclose a portion there.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:53 - 1:42:56)
Yes, so this is already enclosed and covered.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:56 - 1:42:59)
And you're looking to add 87 square feet enclosed.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:59 - 1:43:09)
Yes, we're looking to enclose this here. Okay. We're trying to call this, it's a screen.

So basically, there's walls and a window. We're going to get rid of the walls and the window, leave it covered, and turn it into a screened-in room.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:09 - 1:43:12)
Okay, so those look like they're conforming changes there.

[Speaker 7] (1:43:12 - 1:43:16)
This is a good place to see what he's talking about because you can see the...

[Speaker 1] (1:43:16 - 1:43:16)
It's a better view?

[Speaker 7] (1:43:17 - 1:43:23)
Well, you can see what's there. This is the laundry room, and that's becoming a screened porch slightly larger than the existing laundry room.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:23 - 1:43:25)
Enclose, yeah, that's very good.

[Speaker 5] (1:43:34 - 1:43:37)
Were you on the floor plan, Heather, or were you on the renderings?

[Speaker 14] (1:43:38 - 1:43:39)
I'm on the floor plan.

[Speaker 7] (1:43:39 - 1:43:42)
I feel like the floor plan is the easiest way to kind of see it.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:43 - 1:43:45)
So what's that other part up at the other end of the house?

[Speaker 1] (1:43:46 - 1:43:49)
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering, up near the driveway, right along the lot line.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:49 - 1:43:50)
On Highland Street.

[Speaker 6] (1:43:51 - 1:43:51)
The front porch?

[Speaker 4] (1:43:51 - 1:43:53)
There's also a proposed...

[Speaker 6] (1:43:53 - 1:44:37)
Right now, we have a covered front porch on the front of the house. What we're looking to do is... So currently, the way that it is is there's an entrance to the front porch right here.

It's all covered currently. It's all a fence around it, and it goes into the front of the house. What we're looking to do as part of that is to enclose half of it and then remove the entrance from the actual road to the driveway so you can get off the driveway and actually come up to the porch and into the house this way instead of coming in from the street.

So it's already existing and covered. We're just looking to enclose half of it to make it another room.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:38 - 1:44:49)
Where I was getting confused is where it says proposed porch enclosed, proposed porch open. You're telling me it's existing.

[Speaker 14] (1:44:50 - 1:44:51)
Correct.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:51 - 1:44:54)
It's open, though. The whole thing has a roof.

[Speaker 5] (1:44:54 - 1:44:56)
The street view shows it very well.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:56 - 1:44:56)
Okay.

[Speaker 14] (1:44:57 - 1:44:58)
Like on Google Maps?

[Speaker 5] (1:44:58 - 1:44:58)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (1:44:59 - 1:45:04)
There's a roof over it. It's all open. It's moving towards the front.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:11 - 1:45:12)
Photographs would be helpful.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:13 - 1:45:20)
We're going to get a picture in a second. Thanks, Marissa.

[Speaker 6] (1:45:20 - 1:45:20)
Sure.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:46 - 1:45:47)
That's the structure right there.

[Speaker 6] (1:45:48 - 1:46:00)
Basically, we'd like to somewhere about halfway down just enclose all of that. We have to make it straight from where it's on to the bottom instead of...

[Speaker 1] (1:46:00 - 1:46:05)
So when did that roof there, when did that go on, the cover of the porch? Was that always there?

[Speaker 6] (1:46:06 - 1:46:08)
We bought it before Stephen was there.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:13 - 1:46:17)
So you want to enclose what part? The front porch.

[Speaker 6] (1:46:17 - 1:46:30)
Just half of the front porch. Basically, leave this as is open. Try to close the half that's over here so it's basically around this door when it goes into the house.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:32 - 1:46:45)
And with that area... So on the proposed, it just shows it as covered front porch. So on the plan, it shows it just as covered.

[Speaker 7] (1:46:48 - 1:46:49)
Yeah, on the plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:49 - 1:46:54)
But on here, it shows as proposed porch enclosed.

[Speaker 7] (1:46:55 - 1:46:58)
You can see where the enclosure starts on the proposed.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:58 - 1:47:23)
Yeah, I see it, but I'm just wondering. There's a different choice of words. One says covered, which is how I would view what's existing.

It's covered. And then on the certified plot plan, it describes it as enclosed. Follow me?

So you're going to put walls there? Are you going to put screen?

[Speaker 6] (1:47:23 - 1:47:35)
I guess we're going to do walls. So it's going to be...

[Speaker 5] (1:47:35 - 1:47:39)
It shows it on A3, on page A3, Paul's drawings.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:39 - 1:47:40)
Okay, yeah.

[Speaker 11] (1:47:40 - 1:47:45)
I believe he was on Zoom as well, our architect. I'm here.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:47 - 1:47:57)
All right. So on the plan, A3, showing screen porch in the back. And then I see with the door.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:58 - 1:48:02)
The upper left corner there, that west front elevation shows the enclosed.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:03 - 1:48:06)
Got it. Okay, yeah. All right, now we got it.

[Speaker 11] (1:48:06 - 1:48:08)
This is the porch, am I correct? Yes.

[Speaker 13] (1:48:09 - 1:48:10)
Preschool level drawing? Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:12 - 1:48:37)
Okay. So, okay. So you're not increasing the existing nonconformity in terms of setback.

That's not changing. Now, let me ask this, though. The steps, are they going to remain when it says to be enclosed?

What happens with the steps in? Are the steps going to be from the other side?

[Speaker 6] (1:48:38 - 1:48:44)
Yes, coming from the driveway. So, I don't know if you can turn the picture again for me.

[Speaker 3] (1:48:47 - 1:48:48)
Down the street a little bit.

[Speaker 11] (1:48:48 - 1:48:50)
Yeah, it's going to shift all of this.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:50 - 1:48:53)
Let me just do the annotation. Inside there.

[Speaker 6] (1:48:53 - 1:49:09)
So basically where the driveway is here, where this, I guess, open area is now, you cut in from the driveway. So if she turns back, there's a wonderful point of offset. When we open up this way, you cut in off the driveway to the stairs here.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:10 - 1:49:36)
Okay. All right. So I understand that part now.

And then on the, and then I understand the enclosure to the back, which is all conforming, not increasing any nonconformity. But the other thing I'm trying to understand, though, in the back, is this increase, I think, to the proposed deck in the back. Correct.

[Speaker 6] (1:49:36 - 1:49:52)
So that's where the 3.5 feet. The back would basically be extended with the width of the stairs. So that you basically, once you got to the back of the deck, you'd be able to walk straight down the railing to the stairs.

The stairs would go down, it would land there.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:55 - 1:50:19)
Also page 8. I don't know that we have so on here. I just don't know that we have any authority to go beyond the existing side yard setback, or at most what we have authority to do, which would be 20% of the seven and a half foot setback, or six feet.

I think it's already closer than six feet. It's five feet, nine inches to the existing.

[Speaker 7] (1:50:20 - 1:50:26)
Now does the existing to the end of the stairs, or is the existing to the end of the deck? Do the stairs count? I guess that's my question.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:26 - 1:50:35)
Well, we've had that issue on Puritan. And they don't count as for the setback, I believe.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:35 - 1:50:36)
I think unenclosed stairs count.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:36 - 1:50:48)
Unenclosed stairs don't count. But we have an unroofed deck here, but it can't be any closer than. So the thing with the deck.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:49 - 1:50:51)
Yeah, it's 2382, I think.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:51 - 1:50:51)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:52 - 1:51:04)
So that provides that we have unroofed porches and the like, but you're not projecting more than 10 feet beyond the line of the foundation wall.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:04 - 1:51:15)
And that's what we have here, an unroofed porch. So it can't go beyond 10 feet from beyond the line of the foundation. And I don't know, do we have that dimension here?

[Speaker 7] (1:51:17 - 1:51:17)
It's 12.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:18 - 1:51:18)
It's 12 feet.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:20 - 1:51:23)
All right, so that doesn't get more than 10 feet.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:23 - 1:51:32)
So I think we, in terms of what I think you can do, is you can't go beyond the 12 feet that you already have.

[Speaker 6] (1:51:32 - 1:51:34)
I think the 12 feet is proposed.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:34 - 1:51:35)
It's proposed, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:36 - 1:52:31)
Oh, okay. But I don't think you can go beyond 10 feet from the foundation wall. I think currently it's 9.

Oh, I see. It goes a little bit beyond. So whatever it goes beyond, I don't know that we have that.

It looks to me like it's 5.9 feet. Oh, no, I mean from the foundation to the edge. But I think it's nonconforming because it goes beyond that 10 feet.

Right? So it's nonconforming because it extends already beyond the 10 feet from the foundation wall. So you can't extend that nonconformity at all.

So I think you can go along the same line that you have to the back, but no closer. Are you following me? I think what you can do, although it shows all the stairs go in the other direction, right?

Are you looking to change the stair direction there?

[Speaker 6] (1:52:32 - 1:52:51)
Yes. So currently basically you come to the driveway and there's an opening here and there's an opening here. The stairs go down this way.

We're going to get rid of the stairs and basically put them off the end of the deck. So we're extending the deck back to 3 feet, which is basically the width of the stairs. So it goes down to a landing, turns, and then comes back down into the yard.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:53 - 1:53:21)
But I don't believe that you can go any further than this 5.9 feet line there. I think you can cut further back here, and I think that's all fine. But you can't go beyond 5.9 feet because you're greater than 10 feet here. So that's what I think you can do. Do you see what I'm talking about here?

[Speaker 6] (1:53:22 - 1:53:24)
Yeah, basically the existing deck.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:24 - 1:53:42)
Yeah, Marissa's got the right line. You can continue down there, Marissa. You can stay at the 5.9 feet, but you can't go any closer to the side yard setback because you're beyond 10 feet from the foundation wall.

[Speaker 6] (1:53:43 - 1:53:49)
Well, I think currently it has to be somewhere. I think that's currently 9 feet.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:51 - 1:55:04)
But even if you are 9 feet, which do not project more than 10 feet beyond the line on the foundation wall and do not comply with the yard regulation by the district in which the structure is built by the 5-foot setback. So even if it were 9 feet, you could do it 1 more foot, provided you were still 5 feet away. You can only do it 9 inches at most because you're 5'9 currently, Sean.

You follow me? So that's the issue. You definitely can't do it to the 3.5 feet in my view. Does everybody see it that way? That you can only do it to the, at most, 5 feet, provided that the edge of the deck is no more than 10 feet from the foundation wall? Your architect's on the...

Yes. So maybe he knows the dimension, he or she knows the dimension of the distance of the existing deck from the foundation wall?

[Speaker 10] (1:55:07 - 1:55:10)
I don't know the exact dimension currently.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:14 - 1:55:31)
Let's see, can we figure it out from any of the other dimensions that are on here? I see that 7.5 feet setback line, and then I'm trying to figure out what that... Is that 12 foot line?

[Speaker 6] (1:55:31 - 1:55:59)
Is that all the way to the edge of the stairs? No, so you can see that there's this uncolored area, which is where the stairs currently go. This 12 foot would be the proposed deck line, and then this is the current deck line.

So we're looking to stay at 3 feet, which would be about 6 inches less than the current stair. And I think the current deck is 9 feet from the house.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:05 - 1:56:06)
So...

[Speaker 5] (1:56:06 - 1:56:10)
Looks like some math might be required, but it...

[Speaker 2] (1:56:10 - 1:56:11)
Let's see.

[Speaker 6] (1:56:12 - 1:56:13)
It seems to be there.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:14 - 1:56:26)
I found that dimension that's 9 foot 3 inches from the house to the edge of the current deck.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:27 - 1:56:27)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:27 - 1:56:29)
On that blue line there.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:29 - 1:57:41)
So that means you can go over another 9 inches, which would bring you 5 inches from the side yard setback, which is the most that you can be. And I don't believe you need... Well, it's covered, right?

Is that what it is? It's uncovered. I don't know that you need relief from us to do that.

I think you can get a building permit because you can be, on that portion, you can be 10 feet from the foundation wall of the unenclosed deck, so long as you're 5 feet from the setback. You can't get all the relief that you're looking for here towards the back because it can't be 3 1⁄2 feet. You have to keep it at that no more than the 5 foot, 9 inch existing...

Oh, I'm sorry, the 5 foot setback. You follow me? It has to...

You can go along that side yard, but everywhere it's got to be at least 5 feet.

[Speaker 10] (1:57:42 - 1:57:46)
Okay, so we can add 9 inches to the existing deck.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:46 - 1:58:10)
9 inches at the front, but if it gets narrower at the back, it always has to maintain 5 feet on that side, and we don't need to give you relief for that. That you can do as of right, in my opinion, right? Anybody have any different opinion about that?

Mark? Yes.

[Speaker 10] (1:58:11 - 1:58:28)
My concern, I didn't think this was... I kind of explained that I thought this was the way it was going to go, but if they wanted to extend the deck back into the yard more than 10 feet off the back of the house, they're going to still be 5 feet off the side in the back, which...

[Speaker 1] (1:58:28 - 1:58:29)
Oh, right, right.

[Speaker 10] (1:58:29 - 1:58:41)
They're off 10 feet in the back. I think it's 7 1⁄2 in that neighborhood. Well, if they go beyond the 10 feet...

What do you mean beyond the 10 feet? Like if you wanted to bring the back deck further...

[Speaker 6] (1:58:41 - 1:58:50)
We would only be extending this existing deck portion, so it wouldn't be...

[Speaker 1] (1:58:50 - 1:59:28)
But that's a great point because once you get beyond 10 feet from the foundation line in the back, you're triggering that side yard problem that you have because you're in the setback. So at the very back, wherever you extend beyond the 10 feet from the foundation on that side yard setback, you've got to comply with the 7 foot 5 inch for that parallel area. Or we could give relief up to 20%, which would get you to 6 feet.

You can't go any...

[Speaker 10] (1:59:28 - 1:59:36)
I think what I was mentioning to the owners that because you're probably not going to gain it on the side, you might want to gain it in the back.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:37 - 1:59:37)
I agree.

[Speaker 10] (1:59:37 - 1:59:44)
So I just wanted them to have a plan A, plan B, so we're not back and forth and we give them the right thing the first time.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:44 - 1:59:56)
Yeah, if you just kept it at the 5 feet, you're not increasing that non... So even if you're...

[Speaker 6] (1:59:56 - 2:00:07)
I think this line here is 10 feet. No, but they...

[Speaker 1] (2:00:07 - 2:00:07)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:00:08 - 2:00:12)
I think this part of the deck is only 6 feet.

[Speaker 7] (2:00:12 - 2:00:13)
6 foot 4.

[Speaker 6] (2:00:13 - 2:00:25)
6 foot 4 from the wall to the current deck. And we're going to extend it out basically to 3 and a half feet for the stairs, which brings it out to 10 feet. So that 10 feet is actually all the way out to this dotted line where the performance deck is.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:25 - 2:00:27)
Paul, is that correct? It's 10 feet?

[Speaker 6] (2:00:28 - 2:00:28)
Yes.

[Speaker 10] (2:00:28 - 2:00:32)
It's 10 feet out to the back of the proposed deck.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:32 - 2:00:51)
Okay. So you're 10 feet. So that's okay.

But then you can't be 3 and a half. You've got to shave it off there because you can't be closer than 5 feet at the back. You follow me?

On the side yard, you can't be at 3.5 feet on the side yard setback. The bylaw says...

[Speaker 6] (2:00:51 - 2:01:02)
Well, again, this 3.5 is at this proposed, not at the current. It's at the previous proposed. We're in this line down.

We're all 5'9".

[Speaker 1] (2:01:02 - 2:01:05)
Right. So you're going to be at 5 feet. We can't give you relief beyond 5 feet.

[Speaker 6] (2:01:05 - 2:01:07)
Correct. So if we had to...

[Speaker 1] (2:01:07 - 2:01:08)
If you held that line at 5 feet...

[Speaker 6] (2:01:08 - 2:01:20)
If the line just run it down to here where the proposed is, then we wouldn't have to do anything special. We'd be 10 feet here. We'd be 5 feet here within the 10 feet.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:22 - 2:01:22)
Yeah?

[Speaker 10] (2:01:25 - 2:01:37)
My point was, just for your sake, because you're not gaining what you wanted to gain on the side, now's the time if you want to push it back further to get the relief.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:37 - 2:01:45)
Go back further. But I don't know that he needs relief from us. Well, it would be because he's in that 5 foot.

But I think...

[Speaker 7] (2:01:45 - 2:01:48)
You're not approaching on the rear at all.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:48 - 2:02:18)
But where you get... Yeah, you don't want to get up the yard. But on the 10 feet from the foundation wall, that only triggers the side yard violation.

We could give a dimensional special permit to 6 feet on the side yard where it extends beyond the 10 feet from the foundation wall. But no more. We can't bury the 5 foot.

Follow me?

[Speaker 10] (2:02:18 - 2:02:31)
Yeah, I just want a very clean path. No, I know what you're saying. I just don't want...

Hey, now we want to go back further. And I say, well, now we want to go back 18 feet.

[Speaker 6] (2:02:32 - 2:02:37)
Angle it this way. Once we get to 10 feet here, then we can just angle it that way.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:38 - 2:02:47)
Once you get to outside of the 10 feet, then you've got to get... We could give you relief of a dimensional special permit for that little piece to 6 feet.

[Speaker 6] (2:02:52 - 2:02:55)
It just needs to move over 3 inches from there.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:58 - 2:03:33)
Well, actually, you're at 5 feet 9 inches there. So you're protected at the 5.9 right there. But when you extend it further back, you actually have to be 3 inches beyond that.

You have to be no more than 6 feet if we gave you a dimensional special permit. If you kept it all at 5 feet along that line and you went no more than 10 feet from the foundation wall, you don't need relief from us for that. You only...

If you're enclosing... Is it already covered, that rear center porch? It is right here.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:33 - 2:03:34)
It's covered.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:34 - 2:03:35)
It's covered currently.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:35 - 2:03:46)
It's closed and covered. We have siding in the windows. Basically, we're going to extend to 10 feet here.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:46 - 2:03:57)
Yeah, I'm just thinking if you need relief from us for that proposed screen porch in the back... Well, you're covering it, but everything is conforming. You just need a finding from us on that.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:58 - 2:03:58)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:59 - 2:04:13)
And in the front, I think you just need a finding. So long as... Are you okay with keeping it at the 5 feet all along 5 feet from the lot line all along that side?

You're not going to get it.

[Speaker 6] (2:04:14 - 2:04:15)
We don't have authority.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:18 - 2:04:30)
You don't because we don't have authority. We can't vary the bylaw on the 5 feet. So that's what we can give you the okay for is up to no closer than 5 feet.

[Speaker 6] (2:04:31 - 2:04:35)
So basically, we can gain the 9 inches along that side yard.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:35 - 2:04:35)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (2:04:35 - 2:04:42)
And we gain that 9 inches all the way down past to this 10-foot...

[Speaker 1] (2:04:42 - 2:04:46)
Yep, all the way to 10 feet. And at that corner where it says 3 1⁄2, it has to be 5 feet.

[Speaker 6] (2:04:46 - 2:04:52)
Where this blue line is, it goes out fractional here, and then we go all the way down to here.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:52 - 2:04:58)
And it's got to be 5 feet from the lot line all along. It's got to run parallel to the lot line 5 feet.

[Speaker 6] (2:04:58 - 2:05:04)
But then if we went past this 10-foot line, it would have to then shift back over to the 6-foot line.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:04 - 2:05:09)
Well, you need to ask us what it is. So it would be 7 1⁄2 without relief for us.

[Speaker 6] (2:05:09 - 2:05:11)
Yes, to get it to 20 percent, it would be 1 1⁄2 feet.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:11 - 2:05:14)
6 feet in your dementia special program.

[Speaker 6] (2:05:14 - 2:05:18)
So we're asking you to get that pulled over. It would have to shift over and have that 10-plus foot line.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:19 - 2:05:25)
I don't know if you get to think about it. If you're looking to go further back, if you are, you can come back here next month.

[Speaker 6] (2:05:25 - 2:05:29)
Like I said, the yard's small enough up to this.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:29 - 2:05:29)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:05:31 - 2:05:37)
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:41 - 2:05:54)
So do you want me to close our public hearing and make a motion? Well, first, is there anyone that wanted to speak or have questions about this petition? Okay.

Is that Justina?

[Speaker 12] (2:05:55 - 2:05:59)
Yeah. Hey, Justina.

[Speaker 9] (2:06:00 - 2:06:05)
Hi, this is actually Anthony's question. Hi. Justina's my wife.

[Speaker 10] (2:06:06 - 2:06:15)
But we both have seen these plans before and think that any relief that is required should be put through.

[Speaker 8] (2:06:17 - 2:06:24)
I guess if they're looking for any more, it doesn't sound like they are now, but. Yep. Okay.

Well, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:24 - 2:06:59)
You're the neighbor that's affected by the side yard setback. So thank you. Anyone else that wanted to be heard about this petition?

Please do raise your hand if you're hearing none. Is there anyone? Okay.

All right. So I'll make a motion first to close. Anyone on the board have any questions about this?

I want to make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second on that?

[Speaker 15] (2:07:00 - 2:07:00)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:01 - 2:07:07)
Okay. So I'll make a yes. Heather?

Yes. Dan? Yes.

Andy? Yes. Paula?

[Speaker 14] (2:07:07 - 2:07:08)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:08 - 2:08:37)
Anyone want to make a motion? Anyone want to write the decision? I've got it in my mind.

I don't think it's that complicated, though. But I'm already doing the other finding. I can probably do this at the same time.

So I could do this one. So I'm going to make a motion to make a finding that provided the side yard setback for the changes to the existing deck along the Sanchez property are no closer than five feet from that lot line that the front yard enclosure that is shown on the plans and the rear yard enclosure on the deck do not create any new nonconformity and the alterations to the deck provided they are no more than 10 feet from the foundation line and no closer than five feet from the side yard setback or the existing deck setback are permitted.

Do I have a second on that?

[Speaker 5] (2:08:38 - 2:08:38)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:39 - 2:08:41)
I'm going to do a roll call. So I'll make a yes. Heather?

[Speaker 5] (2:08:42 - 2:08:42)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:43 - 2:08:46)
Dan? Yes. Andy?

Yes. Paula?

[Speaker 5] (2:08:47 - 2:08:47)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:48 - 2:10:22)
Okay. So you have your relief. Okay.

So last but not least is 2126 Pine Street Development. Continued hearing. Mr. Ernie Quinn, thank you for your patience tonight. So first I can tell you that I have listened to the prior meeting and I will fill out signing out to David that I have done so and I understand we have a revised plan that has been circulated to us and the request for relief has changed as outlined in your letter. So I would first ask you to maybe give us an overview of the changes that have been made since the last meeting.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:23 - 2:12:27)
Sure, I will. Hi, everybody. Thanks for waiting for me.

I appreciate it. We have our architect and owners online as well attending tonight. We left the last meeting knowing we had more homework to do, a significant homework, so the developers gave the architect permission to design a project that did not require variances.

So we're not seeking any variances tonight, only special permits. The basic changes are that we are now at 21 units, 29 on-site parking spaces. We have building coverage under 77 feet, which would be the maximum under a special permit.

We have two-and-a-half stories. We do still have 36 feet, 2 inches, which is a little over the 35-foot maximum, so that still requires relief. The parking requires relief because 21 units under the bylaw requires one-and-a-half units, which turns out to be one-and-a-half spaces per unit, which turns out to be 32 spaces.

So we have 29 in the building to accommodate those units. The square footage of the building has been reduced by over 3,000 square feet. It's been pulled back from Erie Street further than it was.

It's been pulled back a little more from Pine Street than it was. But the new design, the more historically appropriate design, has been maintained. So with that, I would like to ask if you – I mean, I'll certainly answer any initial questions you have, but my next step would be to ask our architect, Peter Pittman, to briefly go over the renderings and plans so you can see what we've got now as our project.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:28 - 2:12:32)
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Quinn. Mr. Pittman, how are you?

[Speaker 8] (2:12:37 - 2:13:13)
Good evening, everyone. This is the old rendering, but just to give you a conceptual idea of what we've done, is we've basically taken 10 feet off the end of the building, and we did that by basically taking this Shad Dormer, which was a double Y, and making it similar to these. So you'll see that in the elevations.

So it actually brings a little bit of uniformity to the elevations.

[Speaker 4] (2:13:18 - 2:13:24)
So we don't have a rendering of that? No plans of showing the old one then, right?

[Speaker 8] (2:13:24 - 2:14:15)
Yeah, I showed you the old one, but we do have amended elevations. So I will present that to you. The significant change here is the 10 feet that we took off the end of the building here, which has resulted in losing three spaces in that reduction of square footage.

This still remains a one-bedroom unit on the first floor. And then we've got a detailed study later on that shows how we lowered, structurally, the ceilings in the garage to meet that half-story requirement.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:18 - 2:14:22)
So what's the height on the ceiling of the first floor garage?

[Speaker 8] (2:14:23 - 2:17:00)
The substantial part of the ceiling is going to be less than 7.3, but over 7 feet. So your zoning code defines square footage as counting for calculations at 7.3 or taller. But the building code requires we have 7 feet of height.

So we're threading the needle between the 7-foot building code and the 7.3 of your zoning code. There are areas where we have to maintain a higher ceiling because of handicap parking requirements. And there's a detailed study deeper in the SAP.

We didn't develop the units, but that's basically where the units would be. Same here on the top floor. We do show the roof deck.

This is our future solar panels here and here. And then these are our HVAC units, our condensers. We maintain the screen between the neighbor and the VFW.

Here's that front elevation color. So this used to be a double-wide. And basically we pulled the 10 feet out of here and slid that over.

Similarly in the back, this got smaller. The light blue area is all that would be less than 7.3. This has 7.3 to finish. It should really say 7.2 or 7.3 minus. This is the 8-foot-3 area, which is all required by ADA requirements. And this other blue is, again, less than 7.3. This unit has 10-foot ceilings in here and basically throughout this, although it does step down. There are taller ceilings down here.

So that's the significant changes from what we presented last time.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:01 - 2:17:07)
Okay, thank you. First, does anyone on the board have any questions for Mr. Pittman?

[Speaker 7] (2:17:09 - 2:17:24)
So the lowering of the garage level over the portion that you were able to lower it is just kind of an artificial dropped ceiling. We're not lowering any other part of the structure at that spot. We're just lowering the ceiling?

[Speaker 8] (2:17:24 - 2:17:52)
We're structurally lowering the ceiling. It's not just an acoustical ceiling. It would be a Chicago-style ceiling or more durable than that, at least as a Chicago ceiling.

We also reviewed this with the building inspector before doing the work to see if that would meet his interpretation. So, Steve, do you want to chime in on that?

[Speaker 10] (2:17:54 - 2:18:13)
You know, I know we talked briefly on the phone. I didn't see the drawings. I do believe a Chicago ceiling is actually a framed-in ceiling with sheetrock screwed to it.

So it would be the definition of a structural ceiling, in my opinion.

[Speaker 4] (2:18:15 - 2:18:26)
Okay, thank you very much, Steve. And the 7-3 figure is because the floor above it is—what's the height of the floor above?

[Speaker 8] (2:18:29 - 2:19:00)
Ten feet. Ten feet. So I have to have an 8-foot garage door, and then I need the radius for the garage door to be able to go up.

Then I need my floor thickness for structural systems, mechanical systems. So it's a pretty tight floor section, even at that. Okay, thank you.

Ten feet.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:02 - 2:19:09)
Any other questions from the board? Are there any other questions? Before I open it up to the audience to see if there's any comments about the new plan?

[Speaker 4] (2:19:13 - 2:19:33)
I guess I just don't totally understand how it's just a half story, how it meets that definition, how it's 50% or less. In the square footage of the floor above.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:33 - 2:19:55)
Well, they're not asking us for relief for the two-and-a-half story definition, right? And I suppose they do it at their peril if they're wrong about that, if someone appeals and it's determined that it isn't a— so we're not giving relief beyond that, but maybe we could take a peek at that.

[Speaker 7] (2:19:55 - 2:20:14)
But we've had this before where somebody added sort of structural beams on a third floor to kind of false the ceiling height, and I voted against it.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:14 - 2:21:05)
Yeah? I don't remember that. I remember there was another petition, but here I listened to the hearing from the last meeting, and I had a different perspective in terms of even the variance criteria with them not being able to put the parking below because of the floodplain and the unique features of this lot, but that was a different analysis.

Now they're not asking for a variance. They're asking us to give them special permits and no relief for stories. So I guess the analysis is do we have to go further?

[Speaker 7] (2:21:05 - 2:21:25)
This petition to us was something that was clearly three stories, but didn't ask for relief. Wouldn't we say—if it was asking for relief for something else, we would point out the fact that this is clearly three stories, and we can't give you the relief because— Yeah, true, true.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:26 - 2:21:40)
But we're given this history, so let's say they were wrong about it, and someone challenged it in court. They leave themselves open potentially to a claim if they didn't get that relief, but if you want to vet it out, why don't we look at that?

[Speaker 2] (2:21:41 - 2:22:08)
Where is that story definition in the bylaw? It's the definition of gross floor area and the definition of story. They go together, not alphabetically, but analyzing.

Right, it's in the definitional section, right? There's specific provisions in your ordinance that allow this to be done, especially for a garage. Okay, if half the floor area is less than 7'3", by definition it's a half story.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:09 - 2:23:01)
Well, it says story, the portion of a building, including basements, cellars, garages, storage areas, etc., contained between any floor in the floor or roof above or next above it. The lowest level of a building, including basements, cellars, garages, storage areas, etc., shall not be counted as a story if more than one-half of the height of this level is below the average finish grade of the ground adjoining this level. A half story is a story which is comprised of 50% or less of the square footage of the floor below.

It's interesting because it talks about the lower level, the garage, any level, but then that last sentence, a half story, is comprised of the first portion of the definition.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:02 - 2:23:16)
I suppose you could read that last sentence as including the floor above, right? A half story is a story which is comprised of 50% or less of the square footage of the floor below or above, I guess.

[Speaker 8] (2:23:17 - 2:23:24)
Mark, one thing you have to read in context with that paragraph is back to your definition of gross floor area.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:24 - 2:24:16)
Yep, going there. Bill told me that I'm going there right now. Gross floor area, the total square feet of floor space within the outside dimensions of a building, including each floor level without deduction for hallway, stairs, blah, blah, blah, including floor area of attic containing 7'3 or greater in height as measured perpendicular from the floor to the underside of the rafters but excluding basement cellar if more than 50% of height of basement cellar is below the finish grade of the ground adjoining the basement cellar. So it doesn't say...

[Speaker 4] (2:24:16 - 2:24:19)
Why are those two read together? I don't get that.

[Speaker 7] (2:24:19 - 2:24:21)
It doesn't say anything about the height of the basement.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:22 - 2:24:28)
Well, this isn't a basement. This is on the ground level. It's a garage.

[Speaker 7] (2:24:31 - 2:24:44)
It really makes it, when you combine the reading of gross floor area and the reading of story, that half story is the third story.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:46 - 2:24:50)
I don't know that I necessarily agree that our bylaw agrees that way.

[Speaker 7] (2:24:50 - 2:24:52)
The square footage of the floor below.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:53 - 2:25:23)
You have that, but then you also have to look at the portion of a building, including garages. We all agree this is a garage, except that there's one dwelling unit in there, but it's predominantly a garage. Contained between any floor and the floor or roof next above it.

The lowest level of a building, including garages, shall not be counted as a story. You're not going to have a garage on the top floor. It's including in story.

[Speaker 7] (2:25:23 - 2:25:34)
Yeah, but that's talking about if it's below grade. That's not talking about if it's a percentage of the floor above it. If 50% of it's below grade, you don't count it at all, right?

[Speaker 4] (2:25:35 - 2:25:43)
Right. Yup. I see it.

The only sentence that matters there is the last sentence.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:43 - 2:25:54)
I don't agree, but why don't we hear what some of the abutters have to say about the changes that were made, and then we can have a further discussion about story, which seems to be the big issue here, right?

[Speaker 14] (2:25:57 - 2:26:00)
I saw Cindy had her hand raised, but then it went down.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:01 - 2:26:11)
So if anyone in the audience wants to be heard about this petition, I would invite you to use the raise your hand feature. Ms. Cavallaro?

[Speaker 11] (2:26:14 - 2:28:56)
Hi, Cindy. Yes. Hi.

Thank you so much. It's been a long night. I'm sure you're all excited to get home as well.

Side note, Marissa, you're the bomb. You just pull through all the time, whether it's during a board meeting or asking me for a favor as a town meeting member. I have to give you kudos.

Andy Rose, I took your page out of your book on vacation. I'm upstairs in my bedroom with my pillows. You made it look so comfortable.

But anyway, concerns about Pine Street. I mean, it looks great on paper, but a lot of it still hasn't been addressed of the concerns of the people that live in the area, mainly right now because of Facebook. Also, demolition.

I mean, I know we're getting the cart before the horse, but that building is as old as I am. I've lived on the street forever, and I'm talking like protection in terms of the demo, removal of it, carting it through town. I mean, let alone it's got to be filled with asbestos.

I mean, that building is super, super old. On paper, it looks good, and kudos architecture-wise. It looks great, but what's on paper and what actually happens are two different things.

And from what I'm hearing as I represent PC3, happen to actually live on the street, higher further up from it, though, is that people aren't happy with not having the actual details of what's going to happen. How much of this is affordable? Is any of it affordable housing?

You know, they've lessened it between Erie and Pine, but by how much? Is that going to take into consideration the traffic flow? Because we all know that Pine Street is a cutthroat to avoid 1A bidding into Salem for people to have visitors, you know, having a dinner party.

And another concern I've also heard is about the roof above, about having grills and parties and whatnot. And, I mean, you know, how viable is that and how necessary is that? So, basically, that's all I've got for now from people that have been contacting me.

It looks great on paper. It sure looks better than what's there. But there's still a lot more that we are very concerned about.

Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:56 - 2:29:06)
Thank you. Ms. Stolten? I think you're on.

Hi, Marsha.

[Speaker 15] (2:29:07 - 2:29:07)
Thank you.

[Speaker 13] (2:29:08 - 2:29:43)
I just have a couple of questions. Sure. One is about the structure.

And the other question I have is if they took parking spaces out of the building, does that mean we're going to have excess parking on our street? I live on Pine Street. I'm sorry.

I live at 37 Pine Street. But both Erie and Pine have an awful lot of parking, especially Erie Street. You faded out on the first question.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:45 - 2:29:47)
I didn't hear the first question.

[Speaker 13] (2:29:48 - 2:29:53)
I'm sorry. I was wondering about the height of the building. Is it still the same on the outside?

[Speaker 4] (2:29:53 - 2:29:58)
Same height. Yes. Yes, the height's the same.

[Speaker 13] (2:29:59 - 2:30:26)
Okay. And on the Erie-Pine side, Mr. Pittman had mentioned that it was going to move in a little bit. But coming down Erie and going on to Pine, it's hard to see around that corner.

It's comfortable. People aren't going to be able to see. So that's one of my concerns.

Well, one of my many concerns. So I just thought I'd put my hand up for listening.

[Speaker 4] (2:30:30 - 2:30:32)
Nice job. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:35 - 2:30:37)
Any response to any of those concerns?

[Speaker 2] (2:30:38 - 2:33:06)
Mr. Quinn? Yeah, I'd just thank the people for their continued concerns and input. It's actually helpful to us.

But, you know, blasting can't be done without a blasting contractor who's qualified, insured, filing a plan of action with the building inspector, getting approval to demolish things, required to maintain safety practices that are well-known in the town and in the industry. So it's not just going to be somebody running in with some dynamite and a backhoe. It's going to be—it may be necessary to pull up all that concrete and level the site.

If it is, there will be plenty of oversight and insurance and monitoring by the community and through the building department to supervise that process. So I think there's real protection there. It's not us that really can—we can try and not do it if we don't have to.

But if we have to do it to build the building, then we're going to have to deal with all the complications and rules of conducting demolition in the town of Swampskate, and they're significant. In terms of excess parking, you know, we did have a traffic study. We've kind of lost track of it because it was submitted very early.

But basically the traffic study found when we were processing a bigger project with a commercial space that the traffic impact on the streets in the neighborhood was going to be negligible compared to the existing traffic. And I certainly sympathize with the question of line of sight and looking at the plans, it looks like to me that as long as we don't put shrubbery or things that obstruct the line of sight from people coming in and out, especially out of the garage onto Erie, there's quite a pathway out of the garage. It's a controlled location.

It's all going to be coming and going in the same spot. And there's quite a bit of room for a line of sight as long as we don't obstruct it with something. So any kind of conditions that you wanted to put in that prohibit us from obstructing the line of sight or shrubberies or anything over a certain height that maybe the architect or somebody would like to talk to you about, that's fixable, and we should fix it, and we'll fix it if it needs it.

[Speaker 8] (2:33:08 - 2:34:30)
Bill, can I chime in on that line of sight? The building is 22 feet back from the curb. That's more than a full parking lot.

So as you pull up to the stop sign or the crosswalk there, you're going to have plenty of visibility, and there's a full car lane in the driveway before you get to the garage doors. So we're just going to be able to pull in onto the property, and it's deeply set on the property in terms of from the radius of the curb. So again, it's meeting all engineering standards by the radius.

We did have a tree there. A line of sight came up in the last meeting, and we did remove the tree that we had here for all those reasons. And we don't anticipate any blasting.

There's no basement here. So there's really, we just need to go down a frost wall or to ledge, and this is one of those rare occasions that ledge would actually do us a favor because there's no visible ledge on the side, so nothing we have to excavate. We have no reason to excavate ledge on this side.

There's nothing we can anticipate.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:32 - 2:34:33)
That's good news.

[Speaker 10] (2:34:33 - 2:35:08)
Mark, just to help ease the public a little bit, we will require a construction plan and a demo plan. We'll weigh in with the police department, the fire department, where we want traffic to go, and we're definitely going to look out for the neighborhood and the citizens of Swampskate through the building department. So we'll cover the little disruption and safe demolition on our part as we can.

We'll be following them very closely.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:09 - 2:35:24)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that had questions about the revised plan that's on the Zoom call? Because it's just us here before the building.

Just got one.

[Speaker 7] (2:35:24 - 2:35:31)
Are we concerned at all that we didn't get these until the public agency's plan?

[Speaker 4] (2:35:31 - 2:35:32)
Yes, and I do have a concern.

[Speaker 7] (2:35:32 - 2:35:42)
Everyone's here, and they've been very active, the community members, and these plans were just shared Monday.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:43 - 2:36:54)
I get that. When was the last meeting? It was June 21st.

And so here we are less than a month later, and you asked for concessions on Grosse Foye area. There were questions about a story that Andy brought up, and Peter said he was going to analyze that, do some research about it. They revised these plans, and they took 10 feet off the building on one side.

I don't know that it's – that the changes are such that – I mean, I haven't heard that from the neighborhood. The height's still the same, which it is. It's 10 feet off the side is basically what occurred for the Grosse Foye – for the open space.

And then there's some changes for the internal program for – lost a unit and a few parking spots inside. Let me ask Cesar, who's raised his hand, questions.

[Speaker 12] (2:36:56 - 2:37:56)
Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, Cesar Pena, 27 Pine Street.

I just want to say I still think there's too many units for that building in this neighborhood. It's a pretty tight neighborhood, especially taking away two parking spots. Like Marcia was saying earlier, there's already a lot of vehicles on the car, especially on – I'm sorry, a lot of vehicles on the street, especially on Erie Street.

And this is just going to sort of increase on-street parking and just make it more difficult for people who already live here to find parking. And I just had a question on the traffic study. When they did that study, did they just get the base numbers just like a standard table since they couldn't actually see any cars coming in and out since there was no vehicle traffic within the last couple years or ever since they've had the building?

So is it just an industry standard for that particular size building that they used on the study?

[Speaker 2] (2:37:58 - 2:38:35)
I know that they did refer to industry standards, as all experts do in that area, and I believe they took traffic counts at the time the study was being done. I don't remember the date of the study, but it's shortly before we first filed. I don't know if I'm answering your question.

Yes, all industry standards were used and referred to, including the need for what they call low-rise multi-family housing, average vehicle use, which is 1.1 vehicles per unit in actual terms.

[Speaker 12] (2:38:36 - 2:38:46)
So essentially, if that building was in operation as a commercial space, that's the type of vehicle traffic it would produce?

[Speaker 2] (2:38:46 - 2:39:20)
Well, it had a factor for commercial space because we initially proposed about 1,400 square foot of first-floor commercial space, which obviously was going to create more stop-and-go parking along in front or near the building. And if people were frequenting the shop that didn't live in the building, it would obviously bring more traffic to the site. We've eliminated that, which at least eliminates all of those concerns about increased traffic relating to the commercial use.

[Speaker 12] (2:39:21 - 2:39:29)
Okay, but obviously there's going to be an increased traffic to what we have now with a residential use or whatever use is coming up.

[Speaker 2] (2:39:29 - 2:40:05)
Yeah, I mean people come and go once or twice a day from their units. That's pretty much the average, but yes, there is a detailed traffic study. The only problem is it's got elements for the residential and elements for the commercial.

The commercial is more intense, and they found that the traffic generated by the whole project was going to be relatively negligible in terms of volume on surrounding neighborhood streets. And they had some specific numbers about how many people might come and go to the commercial space that are irrelevant at this point.

[Speaker 12] (2:40:06 - 2:40:18)
Okay, I just have one more question. Is there going to be any designated area for visitors, or is this all going to stay as residential parking on Pine and Erie?

[Speaker 2] (2:40:20 - 2:40:46)
As best I understand it, all the in-building parking will be designated to residents of the building. Street parking should be available in front of the building, but we have not been able to provide or have not provided because of the size of the building and the size of the lot on-site, outside parking.

[Speaker 12] (2:40:48 - 2:40:59)
Sorry, I just have a big concern about street parking. It's Boston, where we're double-parked and have to go around the block a couple times to find a spot. Right.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:59 - 2:41:24)
Well, the only other thing I can say is I know my clients own some other property in the area. They will do what I believe would be necessary to run a good building and a safe building for the people that live there. We haven't designated anything in particular, but we have other property in the neighborhood that could be the subject of emergency parking or something like that.

[Speaker 12] (2:41:24 - 2:41:27)
Are you able to say where that is around here?

[Speaker 2] (2:41:29 - 2:41:37)
I'm sorry, I don't know. It's within two blocks or a block and a half, and I think there are several, actually.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:38 - 2:41:42)
Okay, Ms. Cavallaro, you have another question or comment?

[Speaker 11] (2:41:45 - 2:41:55)
Yeah, same question. It was about the affordable housing, and then I'd forgotten. I was with this.

Are these apartments or are these condominiums?

[Speaker 2] (2:41:55 - 2:42:49)
That hasn't been decided. There are good elements to both apartments that serve working people, elderly people, and commuters. It will be in a price range that is complementary to needs in the community.

Condominiums are routinely in the industry recognized as better cared for, and unit owners become citizens of the neighborhood, so there's a positive effect there. But the developers haven't decided what to do. Affordable housing under the zoning by-law, we have to provide 2.1 affordable units, and because it's 2.1, that probably means three. So whatever is required for that is going to be provided among the units that we have. So I expect it to be three. It is three.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:53 - 2:46:58)
So, Mr. Quinn, this project has had a fairly lengthy history. There have been several changes along the way. I think our big issue that we have right now is this issue of story, that half story.

That's what I see. I look at the project. I'm about to make a motion to close the public hearing.

But before we do that, I'd like to have an opportunity to just address that a bit with the board, and then close the public hearing, perhaps, and maybe some more discussion amongst the board, and then look to move to a vote. I assume you're looking for a vote on this. Yes.

You're looking for any variance. You're looking for special permits. Yep.

And Heather makes a good point as to how we treat projects if we think that inappropriate relief or relief that's requested isn't being asked for. I understand the arguments both ways on the interpretation. I look at this project and the way that it's changed over time in terms of its look, in terms of its size, the changes to help address some of these issues with open space.

And I told you earlier, I thought that there was grounds for a variance here because you can't put the parking below ground, which is driving the need to keep the height where it's at of the structure to make the project viable. I'm concerned about what's down the road. This project's in the district that's likely to be affected by the new law that has been enacted near train stations, MBTA stations, for increased density.

And I'm concerned this project doesn't get approved. I don't know if the next one might be permitted like has been happening around other train stations, like in Beverly, like in Salem. And then we could have much more massing on this site.

But I do see the project as one that I support. I think I'm going to be a vote in favor. I'm not asking anyone else to state their position, but I think it's worthwhile to have a discussion about the story.

I do see this as a bit unique in that the half story, or I'll describe it as the alleged half story, or the proposed half story that's on the first floor, rather than being, as we traditionally see, on the top floor, is driven, like I said, by the unique features of this site, being that you can't put the parking below grade. Or substantially below grade. But I'd like to give you an opportunity to try and address the concerns of other members about the half story, because I don't think that a couple of members are satisfied with that definition.

I wish that we had more consensus on our board, but I don't know that we do. So I want to make sure I give you every opportunity as the petitioner to make the argument. If you think you've made the argument, that's fine.

But I want to make sure I avoid you with that opportunity.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:01 - 2:47:06)
Come into the lion's den. You don't have to take the invitation.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:06 - 2:47:08)
No, no, no. You get a pass on the lion's den.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:08 - 2:52:33)
I have to try and address it. Again, keeping in mind I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, not a building code expert, although I read them all the time. I would honestly first ask you to take a step back.

This building is 36 feet 2 inches tall. That's all there is. No matter how many stories we call it, that's the height of the building, which is like a foot and a half taller than the limit for a single family house in the neighborhood.

So it's not that big. It's massive on the site. It's bigger than a house would be on the site.

But it's not that tall. It's got all these unique conditions. So it's Stacey brook and cement concrete pad from end to end that has to be taken out.

And being in a flood zone itself is grounds for relief of various types from a zoning board. And we're sitting in the middle of one, and we've had to raise the building six feet, which has squeezed everything into a smaller space, especially as we try to keep the height as close to two and a half stories and 36 two as we can. This is not a project you're going to drive by and be embarrassed about.

This is a project you're going to drive by and be glad you supported it. It's going to be a beautiful building. It's going to provide some great housing to people in this community.

It's going to provide live-in, stay-in housing with an elevator for elder citizens that may use public transportation and commuters that can walk easily to the train. There's a really lot of very positive things that are going to happen here as opposed to leaving what's sitting there, which is a plague on the neighborhood, really. And the future, who knows.

My clients are not so greedy. They've tried to jam a 40B on this or something like that. They're trying to do a reasonable project on the site that serves the community.

So I think it's important to keep that all in mind in weighing how much emphasis you want to put on arguing over the definition of two and a half versus three stories and the building code provisions we were just looking at. I believe the building... I don't want to speak for the building inspector, but this is a well-known strategy.

It's not... We didn't dream this up as a gimmick. Those provisions exist for a situation like this where, you know, space is tight and you're trying to get adequate parking on the site.

I have argued and filed papers with the board in the past, whether you've agreed with them or not individually, that cite the Concordia decision and the White Court decision, both of which granted parking relief for buildings that were considered to be three stories. One did it by special permit and variance, and one did it by specifically... Well, the second one, White Court, they withdrew that because some adjustment apparently was made on the height, so they didn't need the relief once the decision was made.

But there's history in this community of approving that as a variance. There's history in the community of approving that as a special permit. Whether you agree with those or not, that's the law of the community in terms of interpreting the zoning law.

And, you know, with all of that, I would just say, is it really critically important that we delve into the depths of what is gross floor area and what is 7.3 and what's the ceiling made out of? The approach succeeds in keeping the building as physically low as it can be and serve this number of units and has been substantially reduced in size. Substantially modified to meet concerns of the neighbors.

Substantially modified to reduce the impact on the neighbors while still providing some decent housing in the community. So it seems to me that sounds like the tail wagging the dog here. And I know you have your responsibilities, but you have a lot of responsibilities, not only to glean one sentence of the zoning bylaw that's a building code question.

That's for the building inspector to do if we go for a building permit. But I just really believe having sat here with you through all of this, we've gone through a transformation of this project for something that everybody felt was unacceptable to a project that people and even the neighbors are now calling beautiful. And has much less impact than the fears that initially accompanied the project.

You know, I guess all I can say about the roof deck is the roof deck is the roof deck. If it turns out that somebody's vote is pinned on the roof deck, we'll talk about it. It's the developer trying to make a living feels that if he goes with condominiums that will enhance the value of the sale of the units because people enjoy it.

But it isn't 100% necessary for the project. But the parking is and the height is and that's where we are.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:36 - 2:53:31)
You know, one thing that I look at on the project, if everyone is people are hung up on the definition with the parking, not being able to go below grade. The variance that could be granted or considered to be in this case to permit the very definition of story to permit the half story to be on the first floor. So that you're not making a precedent of calling this two and a half story, but permitting it because of the unique conditions of the land with the culvert and not being able to put the parking below grade.

That's just an idea for consideration. I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing at this point.

[Speaker 3] (2:53:31 - 2:53:33)
One question.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:33 - 2:53:34)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:53:40 - 2:53:41)
38 831.

[Speaker 3] (2:53:41 - 2:53:43)
No, the existing building.

[Speaker 2] (2:53:44 - 2:53:49)
Sorry, I'm sorry. Excuse me, Andy. I apologize.

I don't have that number.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:49 - 2:54:10)
I might have it from the original petition. Peter Pittman, if you have it, I don't know if you do.

[Speaker 8] (2:54:10 - 2:54:23)
No, we don't. We don't have detailed drawings of that building because it's going to be torn down. We do have a footprint and just a lot area.

So, but we don't have that at our fingertips.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:24 - 2:54:27)
It should be on the original petition. I've got it here. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:54:29 - 2:54:30)
It was about 15,000 square feet.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:32 - 2:54:40)
Original. Existing. Gross area.

25,000 square feet.

[Speaker 3] (2:54:40 - 2:56:28)
I just want to make the statement for the neighbor. You have 25,000 square feet of commercial space and the traffic that goes with 25,000 square feet of commercial space versus 21 residential units. It's, the traffic is so, and maybe it hasn't been used, but Mark, you and I have sat on this board for years.

And all we did was take hearing after hearing with complaints about this building and trying to stop this and trying to stop that. Maybe it hasn't been used for a couple of years, so there's no traffic. But the fact is, there's a building there that could reuse 25,000 square feet of commercial space four times the traffic unequivocally without even looking it up in the ITE trip rates versus a residential project.

I mean, we can't leave this building here. It's not the right thing to do. I disagree with the attorney's position that we have to follow the law whether we like it or not.

But I think in this case we are. And we as a board have to reconsider it as it was when the ball was getting developed. This is not 20 acres of virgin farmland.

This is one colossal monstrosity. 25,000 feet of commercial space in a residential neighborhood. You don't want to be left behind.

You don't want to be the dog that caught the car. That's half my story. I'll say the other half for when the meeting is closed.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:29 - 2:56:35)
Okay. I'm going to now make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second?

[Speaker 4] (2:56:36 - 2:56:36)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:37 - 2:57:47)
Do I have to do a roll call so I'm a yes? Yes. Heather?

Andy? Yes. Paula?

Yes. Okay. So now that we've closed the public hearing, typically what we do is we have some discussion amongst the board before we have an actual vote.

Because the position has been to give a petitioner who wants to withdraw without prejudice an opportunity to withdraw without prejudice. Given the length of this hearing process, I see no reason why to change that courtesy that we provide to petitioners. So I think you know that I am a yes on this and I would look to make a variance finding so that we don't get locked into the story definition and have a bad precedent potentially.

And that's how I would get there. But I would invite, I think you know it sounds like Andy's absolutely a yes on the project. Hey Mark.

[Speaker 3] (2:57:47 - 2:57:51)
Yes. I want to address the half story portion.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:52 - 2:57:52)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (2:57:54 - 2:58:40)
You know when we're talking two and a half stories and just conceptual zoning, we're thinking that what we have is on the third floor, half of that footprint is built and half of it isn't built. But you could still have a half story that building ran, run or ringed around the exterior of the walls but in the center there was a dish and there was no floor. Fifty percent's occupied, fifty percent was flat roof.

You know and it would still, it would look, read like three stories but it would still be a half story. So you know whether the half story is above or below is what a half story is.

[Speaker 7] (2:58:46 - 2:59:31)
Yeah my issue with the half story, I can follow your thinking on the variance because I can't go lower. I can see a basement as a half story if you know you're on a slope and the majority of it is underground and there's a portion here but I can't agree to an artificial lowering that's unnecessary. An unnecessary lowering of an interior ceiling that does not affect any of the exterior of the building making something count as a half story.

I can get there by the fact that they can't, they can't put any of this parking underground in there. I can't get there the other way. I'm totally good with the variance.

[Speaker 3] (2:59:31 - 3:00:12)
I think this is an absolute slam dunk for a variance because you can't put the, you're in a floodplain. You know and then if it wasn't a floodplain they put the garage in the basement and you know under this thing you're saving yourself like a half story of a building. So I'm totally with the variance so that we don't have to argue over the upside down to a half story and however we talk about that.

I'm totally with the variance. This is what the variance is for.

[Speaker 1] (3:00:13 - 3:00:21)
Okay, alright thank you Andy. I'm going to ask Dan next for if he wants to make any, no requirements to make any comments but I'm sure we're good.

[Speaker 4] (3:00:21 - 3:03:01)
Well the problem I have with the variance is as I said the last meeting was I agreed that it's unique land and because of that you know you can't put the parking underneath. But you also have to show that's only one half of the equation. The other half you have to show that it's a hardship and I don't see how it's a hardship to be held to two and a half stories.

It's a two and a half story building. I think a two and a half story building can be put there. I don't think this is it because I think I agree with Heather.

I think I'm troubled that it's just I think the two and a half stories has been arrived at artificially I think. I don't agree that you read the definition of gross floor area with the definition of story. I do not get the connection.

The reference to seven feet three inches in the gross floor area definition is just telling you when you count the attic. That's all. And then when you don't count the cellar.

I don't know what that has to do with story. Story is a simple calculation. Is it fifty percent from the floor above or below or not?

And I think that can be put here on this unique flood plain land. You can put a two and a half story building here but the developer does not want to do that. The developer wants to put it three stories and they've made it smaller and I'm not really concerned about the height but I think it's not a hardship to put two and a half stories.

It's not going to get as many units as they want and that's just the way I look at it. I'm just trying to follow the bylaw. I like the project as I said before.

I think it's nice looking. I think it would be a benefit to the community. I'm not concerned about the parking.

So all those things that Attorney Quinn listed as he did before, those are all great arguments. I don't disagree with him on any of those things. And it's also the concern as Mark says, you know, we worry something worse could go in there.

Very easily because this is a good project. Something far less desirable could go in there. That could happen but that's not what drives me and how I make my zoning decisions because something worse could go in there.

That's the case all the time. How many times have we heard that from attorneys? We've heard that a million times.

Attorneys have threatened us with that. We didn't threaten anybody. No, no, you haven't.

I'm saying that other attorneys have.

[Speaker 2] (3:03:01 - 3:03:05)
Well don't blame me for what others have done. Andy, let Dan finish.

[Speaker 4] (3:03:05 - 3:03:41)
That's a reality, you know, and that could happen here. The developer might say, you know, we're done and something else that we really don't like could be shoved down our throat. But I think that, but I just can't get there on variance and I can't subscribe to the, which I think is really an artificial…

Hey Dan, let me ask you a question.

[Speaker 3] (3:03:42 - 3:04:26)
If on the first floor, the ground level, wherever the ground level was, all they did was put 20 by 20 square foot lobby. In other words, you walked in the door, you opened the front doors, you walked into the lobby, you had an elevator back, and then you went up to the next two floors that had… So it was really like a team standing above the ground.

You know, it was only 20 square, 400 square feet, the footprint's 10,000 square feet. But would you still call that a three-story building? Would you call that?

I wouldn't call it a three-story building.

[Speaker 7] (3:04:27 - 3:04:40)
Well, it would be by the definition because that space would be considered garage, storage, you know, all those things that were listed under what needed to be counted. Basement, garage, storage.

[Speaker 1] (3:04:42 - 3:05:02)
That's why I see it and I intend to make a motion for a variance and to see if there are sufficient votes with specifically providing that we're not calling it a two-and-a-half-story building. Paula, did you have any comments you wanted to make?

[Speaker 14] (3:05:03 - 3:05:46)
I actually think it's the best use of the space. I'm not quite sure what I think about the two- and three-story business. I'm still sort of, if we're dropping the ceiling, we've let people do that before.

I'm not saying it's the best way to do things, but it is something we've done. I think I'm a yes. I'm just not quite sure if I could define the story.

I'm not there with that. But I think they've already changed the plans drastically. I think this is a much better offering than what we had originally.

I think it's the best use. I know, Dan, like you said, that shouldn't be the reason to vote, but I think it's the reason I'm going to vote.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:47 - 3:10:37)
Okay, well, thank you very much. I'm going to make a motion to make findings that, due to the unique features of this lot, specifically that it is in a floodplain, and that construction is not permitted or feasible below grade to put the parking on this site, which is unique to this site, that we provide that the petitioner has met the requirements for a variance. I'm going to be careful here.

I think I'm going to get a dissenting opinion. Let me just get to Section 5.6.0.0 or 5.5.0.0. So, finding that, owing to the circumstances related to the soil conditions, which I find would not support use of this property below grade sufficient to support a lower deck of parking in the brook that abuts it, that affect this land, but not affect generally the zoning district in which it is located, that a literal enforcement of the provision concerning stories of this bylaw would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner in providing for the use that is proposed, which is providing housing units, including three affordable units that will benefit the town, and desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, without nullifying substantially the derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. And that the petitioner has demonstrated that the soil conditions are sufficient to support a finding of a hardship, and that the petitioner has met their burden for that hardship as it relates to the stories, and finding that this building is in fact three stories, and that is what the specific variance would be for. Additionally, the relief requested is outlined in the letter of Attorney Quinn for use, for building height, for building coverage at the 76.9%, parking relief, the 32 spaces being required and 29 being provided, and the floodplain use and site plan approval under 5.5.0.0 to permit the construction as shown on the revised elevation with the change of the 10 feet off of the structure from the side, and the site plan as amended showing the additional open space with the property being constructed in accordance with the plans that have been provided and subject to the specific requirements as outlined by the building commissioner as to construction management plan and as discussed at this meeting. And do I have a second for that motion? I'll second that.

Okay, I'm going to take a roll call now. I am a yes. Andy?

Yes. Dan? No.

Paula?

[Speaker 15] (3:10:37 - 3:10:38)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:38 - 3:10:39)
Heather?

[Speaker 15] (3:10:39 - 3:10:40)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:40 - 3:10:48)
Okay, thank you. Okay, so Mr. Quinn, I'd ask if you would provide me with a draft decision.

[Speaker 2] (3:10:48 - 3:10:49)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:49 - 3:11:12)
Okay. I will. I thank everyone for their patience, their understanding, their input.

I think everyone in this process has really tried to get to the right result, and if it's not the right result, Dan will be sure to inform me that this is another blow to Shelby's record.

[Speaker 2] (3:11:14 - 3:11:53)
I'd just like to say I really appreciate all of you and those that are visiting or were here on the evenings. You've given us a tremendous amount of your time and a very, very generous opportunity to come back on more than one or two occasions to try and meet your concerns. It's a much better project than it started out to be.

I think, again, when you drive by it, you're not going to be ashamed that you approved it. You're going to be glad you approved it. But I just want to thank you.

I mean, the epitome, whether you agree with us or not, of people are really doing a great job for their community, public service at its best, and I appreciate that.

[Speaker 12] (3:11:53 - 3:11:53)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (3:11:53 - 3:11:54)
We all care.

[Speaker 4] (3:11:54 - 3:11:55)
Appreciate that.

[Speaker 1] (3:11:55 - 3:12:10)
And appreciate everything that both you and the Butters have done on this one. First, thank you for everything. All right.

Well, thank you. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. I'll second that.

I'll second that. Thanks, Peter. All in favor?

Aye.

[Speaker 6] (3:12:11 - 3:12:13)
Aye. Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 14] (3:12:13 - 3:12:14)
Aye.

[Speaker 15] (3:12:14 - 3:12:16)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 6] (3:12:17 - 3:12:19)
Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.